Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 04-23-1984 Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Village of Arden Hills Monday, April 23, 1984 - 7:30 p.m. Village Hall Call to Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Woodburn called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present . - Mayor Robert Woodburn, Council members Dale Hicks, Michael Christiansen, Kathleen Rauenhorst, Thomas Mulcahy Absent - None Also Present - Bond Counsel Tom Deans, Engineer Christoffersen, Treasurer Donald Administrator Charlotte McNiesh, Dorothy Zehm Donald Lamb, Clerk Deputy Clerk A~proval of Minutes H cks moved, seconded by Christiansen, that Council approve the Minutes of the April 9th meeting, as amended, and the correction to the March 26th meeting. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Business from the Floor None PuaLIC HEARING: Improvement No. SS-83-6, Sewer Extension South of Round Lake Mayor Woodburn opened the Public Hearing. Clerk Administrator McNiesh verified publication of the Notice of Hearing in the New Brighton Bulletin on April 4th and April 11th, and reported that notices were mailed to affected property owners on April 9th. (See attached Extract of Minutes - Public Hearing) Rauenhorst moved to adopt IMPROVEMENT NO. SS-83-6. unanimously. (5-0) REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR BUD JOHANSEN Resolution No. 84-14, ORDERING Motion was seconded by Hicks and carried . Chan e Order - Contract for Lift Station No. 2 Counc was re erred to Johansen s memo of 4 18/84. Johansen explained that the pipe has been leaking for some time; noted that pipes were inserted into a steel sleeve in the wall and caulked in place, instead of a continuous pipe; sleeve has loosened, with the constant "stops" and "starts"; consequently the leaking situation has been aggravated to a point where it must be fixed. Johansen said the cost of repairs could be paid from the general maintenance fund, or can be financed as a Change Order to Lift Station No.2 Contract. Hicks moved, seconded by Rauenhorst, that Council approve the repairs as a Change Order to Lift Station No.2 Contract. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) 1984 Seal Coating Council was referred to color-coded map of the City indicating streets to be seal coated on a 5-year basis. Johansen noted that the streets shown in blue are scheduled for 1984 seal coating. Johansen said the Public Works Department could prepare the specifications and advertisement for bids, using the Engineers specs from past years, but feels the expenditure for the Engineer's specs is valuable because it includes oversee of the project. Rauenhorst moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council instruct the Engineer to prepare the specifications and advertise for bids for 1984 seal coating as proposed. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Monday, April 23, 1984 Page Two Vehicle Rental for Summer Months Council was referred to Johansen's memo of 4/17/84 and attached quotes from five rental agencies. Concerns expressed relative to the proposed rental of Johansen's personal vehicle: 1. Not green in color. 2. Insurance coverage, which Johansen said he would check out with the Hite Agency (City's agent). A. Covered by City or Johansen's policy? B. Deductible Collision coverage? 3. Probably not a good precedent to set. 4. Not a full-sized truck. . After discussion, Hicks moved, seconded by Christiansen, that Council authorize the rental of Johansen's truck for the three Summer months at $400/month as per memo. In further discussion, Mulcahy said he does not feel it is a wise general policy, but is willing to try it one year. Rauenhorst - sajd she sees no advantage to the City when a Road King or Courier can be rented at $420/month. Motion carried (Hicks, Christiansen, Mulcahy voting in favor; Rauenhorst, Woodburn voting in opposition). (3-2) Employees Uniform Service Council was referred to Public Works Committee Minutes, and to Johansen's memo of 4/19/84. Johansen reported that the Public Works Committee recommends Council approval of the Public Works Employees uniform allowance proposal as outlined in the memo; reported that the proposal is acceptable to the Public Works and Parks Department employees; noted that if the proposal does not prove to be satisfactory, and Council wishes to discontinue the allowance, rental of uniform service can be resumed. Johansen reported that Roseville follows a similar practice, and has experienced no problems. Christiansen moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council approve the uniform allowance proposal as outlined. Motion carried (Christiansen, Hicks, Woodburn voting in favor of the motion; Rauenhorst and Mulcahy voting in opposition). (3-2) Summer Public Works Employees Council was referred to Johansen's memo (4-17-84) re Summer Employees. Hicks moved, seconded by Christiansen, that Council approve the . employment of Steve Zehm, Bruce Landman and Steve Oen as out- lined in the memo. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Discussion - Financing Additional Water Tower Woodburn reported that the arsenal wants to know soon whether Arden Hills will provide water to the arsenal and, if so, what the charges would be. Woodburn referred Council to several tables he had prepared re how the sale of water to the arsenal will affect the City. Mulcahy queried the City's need for another water tower; suggested that the City's need for a water tower is different from the need for a water tower to serve water to the arsenal. Rauenhorst noted that "water for the arsenal" is not on the agenda; therefore Council should not discuss water to the arsenal tonight. Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Monday, April 23, 1984 Page Three Alternative ways of financing a second water tower were discussed: . - assessment -federal grant - general taxes - increased water rates - participation of arsenal in tower, watermain, additional and/or increased pump sizes etc. Hicks noted that he likes increasing water rates somewhat because tax exempt propertiestwouldparticipate in the costs; noted that homeowners may be better off by paying for thl towlr through taxI'. Mulcahy said there are too many "ifs": - no adequate basis for tower size. - who are the arsenal representatives making the request? no report on the meeting - too many complex contract questions if we had a 15 year contract, would rates be adequate for this period of time. - what are the charts we were given supposed to show? What do they mean? - feels we don't have a concrete proposal at this time for consideration. " Rauenhorst suggested the matter be laid over; asked if we need a water tower, and, if so, how large a tower? Christoffersen reported that the need for an additional water tower is in a major water study report; is based on a real need and standards, and is on file in the City office. Rauenhorst moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that the matter be tabled to the May 14th meeting. Motion c~rried unanimously. (5-0) (copies of 1967 water study report to be provided to Council members prior to the meeting.) REPORT OF PARK DIRECTOR JOHN BUCKLEY . Play Structure - Cummings Park Buckley reported he received response from five vendors and a total of eleven proposals; reported that the Parks Committee recommends the Game-Time structure; advised that it meets the needs and is a wood structure which provides: - a spiral slide - a clatter bridge from deck to deck - 7 levels of decks - a spider rope for climbing - a tire climber - a smaller wave slide - a spring-type balance beam - an earth mover for the sand area He feels it is the best structure for the money. Mulcahy reported that the Committee and John recommend this structure, which is within the $8,000 budgeted. Rauenhorst moved, seconded by Mulcahy purchase of the Game-Time structure. (5-0) that Council approve the Motion carried unanimously. , Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Monday, April 23, 1984 Page Four Approval of Spring Park pro~ram Leaders Council was referred to Buc ley's memo (4-20-84) re program personnel 1984 Spring Program. Hicks moved, seconded by Rauenhorst, that Council approve the hiring of the leaders for the 1984 Spring Program as listed in memo. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Summer Park Program Hicks ~oved, seconded by Rauenhorst that the Arden Hills Parks and Recreation Oepartment 1984 Summer Park Program be approved as listed. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Summer Park Maintenance Employees Council was referred to Buckley's memo (4-20-84) re Summer Park Maintenance Personnel. . Buckley recommended that Kevin Fuller be hired from May 1st through September; explained that Kevin has experience in keeping the mowers operating properly. Buckley said he proposes to start the additional maintenance employees in June. Mulcahy supported Buckley's recommendation. Rauenhorst moved, seconded by Hicks, to approve the hiring of Kevin Fuller at $4,75/hour effective May 1st throught September, 198.4. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) CABLE TV Complaint re Overhead Cable Lines Dan Taylor, 1605 Lake Johanna Blvd., reported that the Cable TV line, installed across his property is unsightly because of the thickness and positioning; feels i~ lowers the value of his house, because it obstructs his view of the lake. Taylor asked if the line could be re-routed, and if so, asked who would pay for it. Council concurred that this is an unusual situation; requested that Group W be asked to explore options to resolve this unsightly situation; Taylor to be notified of Group W's response. Status of Cable Franchise Woodburn reported that the Commission voted to approve the reduced channel capacity system; reported that marketing will begin when individual cities give permission; noted that this could be in a couple months for Arden Hills; reported that the Cable Committee now recommends that Arden Hills go along with the proposal. Case No. B4-5, Special Use Permit for Veterinary HosPItal - Richard H. Routhe Council was referred to draft of Special Use Permit -- Case No. B4-5. Hicks moved, seconded by Rauenhorst, that Council approve Special Use Permit -- Case No. 84-5, as drafted. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) REPORT OF VILLAGE TREASURER OONALD LAMB . Investment 4/16/84 - $300,000 for 30 days at First Federal at 10.40~ interest, to mature 5/16/84. Christiansen moved to ratify the Treasurer's investment. Motion was seconded by Rauenhorst and carried unanimously. (5-0) Oiscussion - Proposed Third Fire Station Council was referred to copy of North Oaks' letter to Shoreview (4-18-84) concerning the Joint Power AgreementlAdditional Fire Station in Shoreview. . . . Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Monday, April 23, 1984 Page Five Council concurred with several of North Oaks' statements reflecting North Oaks' p~sition. which also apply to Arden Hills. McNiesh was requested to relay Arden Hills position to Shoreview. with the added statement that Arden Hills' benefJt is considered minimal in comparison to North Oaks and Shoreview's benefit. OTHER 8USINESS Fire Department Policies HtCks reported that he received a call reporting the presence of a City truck at a fire in Shoreview. Hicks asked if Arden Hills employee/volunteer fire fighters use City vehicles when on fire calls; asked if City employee/fire fighters are paid by City when answering fire calls, as well as by fire department; asked City's liability if fire fighter has an accident with a City truck when answering a fire call. In discussion it was the general understanding that volunteer fire fighters receive some pay from the fire department for answering fire calls, and for attending drills; employees are paid by the City for time spent at fire, and that City truck on occasion are used to answer fire calls. It was noted that the City of Arden Hills currently has more fire fighters during the day t~an the other cities, (understands Shoreview has none at the present time.) It was noted that the number of hours spent on fire calls is not large and that Council has not discouraged partic- ipation by City employees in any way. Woodbridge Properties Status Report The two 1st phase buildings on County Road E were reported to be substantially complete, and reportedly will be occupied in June 1984. Woodburn reviewed previous Council action ~elative to maintenance of the on-site sewer and water lines by the City, after acceptance of the lines by the City. Council ~oncurred that this was the understanding. - The status of the revenue bonds for the project was queried. McNiesh reported that the City has approved the Preliminary Applications; bORds have apparently not been issued. It was noted that if the IRB's are not issued, the antiCipated $150,000 administrative fee to the City may, consequently, not be forthcoming. REPORT OF CLERK ADMINISTRATOR CHARLOTTE McNIESH Release of Bond - Special Use Permit for Stockpiling on Milton Property Council was referred to letter from Planner Orlyn Miller (4-11-84) reporting that the Class 5 material has been removed from the Milton property and that, in his opinion, the terms of the Special Use Permit have been satisfied. Christiansen moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council authorize release of the bond. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Claims Christiansen moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that the Claims be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Arden Hills Sportsman's Club - Concession Stand License Rauenhorst moved, seconded by Christiansen that Council approve the 1984 Concession stand license for the Arden Hills Sportsman's Club at Tony Schmidt Park, effective May 20, 1984. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) May Council Meetings Rauenhorst moved, seconded by Hicks, that Regular May Council meetings be held on Monday, May 14th and on Tuesday, May 29th. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) RCLLG Meeting May meeting will be at the Arden Hills Village Hall on May 16th. . ._-~ Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Monday, April 23, 1984 Page Six It was noted that this conflicts with the Public Works Committee's regular meeting; Public Works meeting will consequently be held in the Public Works building that evening. Board of Appeals MeetinQ Hicks reported he will not be able to attend the April 26th Board of Appeals meeting because of an out of town engagement; asked that arrangements be made for use of the hall by the Committee at 6:00 p.m. Adjournment Rauenhorst moved, seconded by Mulcahy that the meeting adjourn at 11:20 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) . ~~~ Char otte McNiesh Clerk Administrator ~~~~~~ liert L, Woo burn Mayor Notice of Meeting The next Regular Council Meeting will be held on Monday, May 14th I~ 7:30 p.m. at the Village Hall. . Extract of Minutes of Meeting of City Council City of Arden Hills Ramsey County, Minnesota April 23, 1984 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, April 23, 1984, at 7:30 p.m. . The following members were present: Mayor Woodburn and Councilmembers Hicks, Rauenhorst, Christiansen and Mulcahy; and the following were absent: None. Also present were Charlotte McNiesh, City Clerk Administrator; Oonald Christoffersen, City Engineer; Donald Lamb, City Treasurer; and Thomas Deans, City Bond Consultant. MAYOR WOODBURN: Mr. Christoffersen, our Village Engineer, would you explain the project, please. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers, Ladies and Gentlement, this improvement is a sanitary sewer improve- ment and extension. It serves two different types of situations. 1. The current sewage flow is from the area outlined in orange (Lexington Avenue then back to Round Lake; this is the lift location, Highway 96, Highway I-694, 35W). Generally the main sewers in this whole area outlined drain to the sewer pumping station at this location on Old Highway 10, north of I-694, which in turn pumps southerly to a sewage system through Arden Hills, and eventually discharges into Roseville. This system to the south is becoming over-taxed. It was not designed for anything in the north area. It was set up for everything south of I-694, and at the time it was set up, the whole north area drained to the old North Suburban District interceptor. 2. The secondary need for the sewer system is on the south portion of Round Lake and the improvement of that area. The proposed improvement includes the installation of a sewer (showed transparency of area bordered by I-694, 35W, Old Highway 10, 14th Street N.f.). The proposal is to construct this sewer, beginning at the sewer pumping station on Old Highway 10; to construct it deep enough . to eliminate that pumping station; bring it by gravity along Old Highway 10 and along the vicinity (not exactly located but schematically) located in a westerly direction, just north of the freeway, around by the railroad crossing and cross over into New Brighton. The Metropolitan Interceptor is proposed to be extended from somewhere by the railroad bridge to the west of 35W; there's a large New Brighton interceptor at that point; Metropolitan Sewer Board proposes to extend that interceptor over to Arden Hills so this connection can be made, that has not been done at this time. The Metropolitan Sewer Commission proposes to do that as soon as Arden Hills gets this particular program under way. There is a need for it because there are problems with the downstream flows. We are talking about constructing an IS" sanitary sewer deep enough to eliminate that particular lift station. ~ I have two schematic alternatives; showing where there might be benefitted property. This drawing illustrates an alignment extending the sewer south on Old 10, then extending west along the north side of 1-694 and back up into New Brighton; the dotted area is what we are showing as front footage assessment which is set back 200'; beyond the 200' would be an area assessment. This dotted area would not be charged on an area basis, just a front foot basis. This area has been assessed before, in fact, portions of all of this area have been assessed. This area has been assessed for a previous improvement for a frontage and an acreage; some of these properties have been charged acreage in the back. There is a consideration to have assessment on acreage for the unsewered areas. The unsewered areas, on an acreage basis, I have outlined - the dashed outline there may be some additional areas of area assessment back in this location. It depends on what is desired as far as extension of area improvement. This is just another illustration, changing the alignment of the sewer slightly on the easterly end, rather that coming clear down to the north side of the freeway. There is a property line about mid-way between the lift station and the freeway; placing the sewer next to the existing water; if placed in this location, it would be double-sided frontage (200' on one side and 200' on the other times the length). From that point it would probably still drop back to this lower area along the freeway. This particular project is expensive by itself and maybe exceeds benefits; of course that would have to be determined. It's an IS" sanitary sewer trunk line. I mentioned it is rather deep. In the location where it is extremely deep, rather than have the abutting property owners have to dig down 40't to get into the sewer we would put manholes in strategic locations and put drop sections in the manholes; so, you would not have to dig quite as deep to make a connection. Your honor, I believe that completes my portion of the presentation. 2 . , . . MAYOR WOODBURN: O.K., Mr. Deans is here tonight, our Bond Counsel. Mr. Deans, would you like to explain some of the financing possibilities. MR. DEANS: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, first of all this project would be, it is my understanding, built next year. It would be built and assessed next year. The bond issue would be sold next year, tonight is not the assessment hearing. If bonds were sold, it has typically been the City's policy to charge 1% above the rate on the bonds for the assessments to the extent that that is within the usury law. Under Alternate 1, which was the proposal with a single side assessment footage would be approximately 3500' to be assessed; if assessed at $35/ft. that would be $122,500. There is apparently 35 acres that would be available for an area assessment - that would raise about $28,000; total assessment of $150,500. Under Alternate 2, there is apparently 4300 feet that could be assessed at $35/foot ($4300) and 35 acres that would raise $28,000; total assessment of $178,500. If all that property were able to be assessed, that would be within the 20% of the total cost of either one of these projects. Total cost of alternate 1 is estimated at this time at $548,040. Alternate 2 is a little bit more expensive; is estimated at $579,570. It does not appear, unless you went to a much higher per foot level of assessment. For instance, look back at the January 27th memo, if still have that in your files, in alternate #1 you would have to be assessing that 3500 feet at $124/foot to get it up to actually pay for most of that project. For assessment of 100% for Alternate #2 you'd have to be assessing 4300 feet at $108.22/ft. to get you to the total of the project. There is money coming in from the City in either one because of the park land in the area. This was based on your 1971 policy of paying 80%. Obviously you cannot assess the property more than it is benefitted. As I understand it in Alternate #2, part of the sewer runs through some swamp. I don't know how developable that swamp is. That would be determined either by the Councilor ... ~lR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Regarding that swamp, the drawings I have illijstrated on the board, and in the computations, the footage through the swamp was included. MAYOR WOODBURN: And the potential park footage too? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's right. MAYOR WOODBURN: Mrs. McNiesh, were there any written comments? MRS. MCNIESH: None, your honor. . 3 ,. MAYOR WOODBURN: We'll open the meeting then to anyone who wishes to comment on the proposal. Is there anyone here that ... Yes, sir. Will you please identify yourself for the record and make your comments. GEORGE WINIECKI: I live at 4175 Highway 10. I am the Admin- istrator. I represent 14 owners in that property, myself being one. That is the bottom section on Mr. Christoffersen's graph. It appears it's going to affect the price of property that I am involved dramatica1ly, either proposal. . I guess the thing I am concerned about is - I look at the concern of this thing as being "Is it needed right now?" and obviously it appears we'll be assessed for this thing, but the Village, in general, is getting a lot of benefit out of this thing, and I'm concerned as far as we being assessed for the gain of other people. I mean, I can under- stand assessments coming through and we getting a gain from it, . but a fair gain is what I'm looking at, that's my biggest concern. Also, I wish to speak on behalf on Joe Bussard. I believe he lives at 4335 Old Highway 10. He talked to me today. He couldn't be here because he has a severe cold and he has the adjacent pro- perty to the piece of property 1 live on. He is totally against the project altogether. I'm not really sold on it myself yet. I'd like to talk to Mr. Christoffersen a little bit more about it. Joe really wants to make sure the Council is aware that he is not in favor of it at all. He is not too happy with it. That's all I have for now. MAYOR WOODBURN: Thank you. Any other ... JIM WINIECKI: 4471 Highway 10, I guess what I want to know first is, what is the dollar cost? The second thing is, is there another alternative? We just went through the water assessment. We just got through with the water in front of our house, being assessed for that. We don't even have the water, and we paid for that. When in the hell is it going to end? It seems like one thing on top of another. Now, another $5BO,000 project. I don't know. Sometimes it is just beyond me. MAYOR WOODBURN: the items brought up; the present time, are from the people here? JEANNE WINIECKI: 4471 Highway 10. I don't think I'm exactly clear on where the need came from. We are all served by sewer now. Does the need come from the rest of the developments. Are the new developements the cause of this need. I think we'll have some comments on some of perhaps as we go along, a little later. At there any other comments from the audience, MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Shall I answer that? 4 . - . . MAYOR WOODBURN: I don't know how many comments we'll get; we can answer them as we go along. If we get a lot of them, I think maybe we can answer them as we go along. We have: - don't need it now - when will assessments stop? - have water we're not using - question about Bussard property development - now, Mrs. Winiecki's question Why don't you go ahead with those, Mr. Christoffersen. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Mrs. Winiecki's question. There is a need because of sewers downstream. Yes, they are becoming over- loaded because of the developments north of the freeway. The sewers south of the freeway were not designed to serve the area to the north of the freeway. At the time the sewers to the south were designed, it was planned to take the sewage from the north to the North Suburban Sanitary District. Also to include the arsenal. The negotiations that Council made in the past, apparently to go in that direction, fell through; consequently, at one time they determined to go south again; take it south through the lower capacity sewers, and then re-build them when the time came that the over-sized sewers were needed. An investigation was done some time later, and it was determined, and also during the Comprehensive Plan Studies completed in the early 80's; New Brighton has a 42" interceptor not too far away that has excess capacity that can carry everything from the north portion of Arden Hills. We made an in~estigation and found it more economical to put in the sewer as proposed to New Brighton, than to build new sewer all the way down to Roseville. I hope that explains the need, you have been on sewer I believe for some time; you live on Round Lake; you were assessed for sewer in that area in Improvement 12 and 13; when 12 and 13 was built, we also put in the pumping station and the force main to the south. MAYOR WOODBURN: May 1 add to that ... This spring we had a rather mild melt of course, of snow. Even as mild as it was, we had sewage overflow out of some of our manholes down south because of what was coming in from the north; not far south of where you are. JEANNE WINIECKI: In other words, then, it would benefit the entire community; cause is because of over- development for the sewer lines that affects the south... (inaudible) seems irrational... MAYOR WOODBURN: That matter was considered by the Council... (inaudible) Lets go back to the first question. I guess you have covered the need. I frankly don't know how to answer where does it stop. I don't know when it ever stops. It seems it never seems to stop. JIM WINIECKI: I don't know. It does seem like that. We're going to pay the brunt on each end. . 5 . , JEAN WINIECKI: Another concern is the arsenal wanting City water. Is that going to be another thing that will affect our neighborhood because of our proximity to the arsenal. MAYOR ~IOODBURN: - No, it won't be. ~Iorry not. That one you won't pay for. In fact, you only can benefit if it would go through, in your costs, but that's a discussion a little later tonight. Anything else for the moment, Mr. Christoffersen? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: As far as the question, How much? I'm not prepared to say how much because the decision hasn't been made. I think Mr. Deans went through the general rates that might be looked at, and I alluded to the portions that probably would not be re assessed. Actually, there are areas along Highway 10 at least the first 200' along Highway 10 that were previously assessed for sewer on a front footage basis that would probably not be considered ... again as an assessment. It would be the property more remote from the 200', the interior portion, that would be assessed. I don't really know what the footage would be. JEANNE WINIECKI: How would that be assessed front footage when its just acreage? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: The land adjacent to the sewer would be considered the front footage - the 200' adjacent to the sewer line; this area would receive service; property will be closer to this main 1 ine. . GEORGE WINIECKI: I guess I'm talking to Mr. Christoffersen on those two diagrams. (inaudible) It appears that the property at 4175 will bear a bulk of the assessment. It's my feeling that possibly the Council is aware of some things, down there that this property may... sooner or later it's going to develop. I think something will happen on it in the not too near fut~re. Is the location of this sewer line where it should be? Obviously, you have to look at the proximity of things down there. Are the areas chosen the best choice. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: There are two alternate locations that we looked at - along the watermain line, the northerly one along the north of your property. That was a difficult decision when we put the water line in. It was felt by the adjacent property owners that there might be a road in that general location, possibly extended through to 14th Street to make a connection. That is one location. The southerly one you notice on the draw- ing, is the one along the freeway following the most shallow land that we could to get around. Obviously, if the program were undertaken, it would be in the best efforts to find out from the property owners their best guess as to where to put the line. Obviously, we would not want to put it right through a building we would want to locate it where it's most practical. I think we're looking at, on the northerly side of your particular pro- perty that's the deepest, I believe, and as you come down it probably falls off to the south. It gets shallower and shallower. 6 ... " It's the shallowest at the south end of your property. As far as individual property, if it can possibly be worked out, I think it would be the intention and desire to fit into that. GEORGE WINIECKI: Along the southerly edge, granted, it would be easier for them to put it in, but again all the burden of the assessment is pushed over on that piece of property. I guess what I want made clear is that the north is gaining from something on that's going to the southern part of the Village. You've got to be fair in what the costs should be to the property owners. MAYOR WOODBURN: I can assure you that fair is what we want to be. I know you don't mean that we aren't, but none-the-less that too is why we are listening here, to see what can be done., . MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: There is obviously a two-sided frontage on the north; there is only one-sided on the south. In either case the frontage would be essentially assessed against your property. I suspect it would be about the same, whether it is at the north or the south. Obviously, the total cost of the improvement has something to do with the rate. GEORGE WINIECKI: I'm looking at too - you have two big easements running down that north and south lines of the property. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: As I recall, there is a 20' easement on the north. GEORGE WINIECKI: Right down the center, 10 on each side. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: If there were something built to the south, and the sewer was constructed to the south, I would assume that there would be a 20' - 3D' easement over to that sewer, where- ever it might be. GEORGE WINIECKI: Is there another alternative? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Not that I know of. Like 1 say we did investigate going to the south. There was the other alternative of leaving the lift station and constructing less shallow sewers, pumping across the other direction to the west, but by the time you put sewers and feeding back gravity sewers to get back to the lift station, the lift station operation over a period of time it was found to be more economical to spend the capital up front and get rid of the long-time operation of the one lift station because they are expensive to operate. MAYOR WOODBURN: The Council has been working on this with Mr. Christoffersen 3 to 5 years, I think; it feels like. I don't know exactly how long, but we have had many reports on it and finally ordered the feasibility study on this north section be- cause it turned out to be the best - cheapest. Any further comments? . 7 , I'm going to leave the floor open for comments for awhile, instead of closing to comments. My recollection of Arden Hil11tes is that they always come up with some more ideas; so 'we'll leave it open. We'll go to the Council for any questions or comments. The proposal to be looked at tonight, if it's not held over, is to order the improvement. It would not be constructed nor would it be assessed for some length of time, and the figures that you heard mentioned tonight are not the assessment figures. and may not be real at all. There may not even be an assessment if that is legally possible, for sure, but we do have to present what seemed to be the worst case figures on something like this. It's necessary, legally necessary in a 429 procedure, in essence. COUNCILWOMAN RAUENHORST: I have a question re concerns about the areas to be assessed. It was my position that we should be ~ sending public notices to a larger group of homes and property owners than we have. Are we precluded from assessing a larger area - after tonight, we cannot expand the assessment area; if we order the improvement, it is based on this assessment area. MAYOR WOODBURN: It can be expanded with another public hearing. The audience should know that that was a very strong, in fact the Council took a position that the whole north area should get notices of an assessment hearing because they might be assessed. There were several factors that mitigated against that and there was a reversal of the Council's opinion at the next meeting. I think it seemed perfectly logical to many of us to assess the whole area with a small assessment - the area that was contributing toward the drainage, but it doesn't seem too logical to the ~ourts apparently. They threw out that kind of assessment to houses that already had benefit. In other words, they have sewer now; so, they aren't benefitted by sewer even if the sewer is too small, they can still flush it and it may run over downstream; so, sewered property cannot be assessed, if the Duluth case is applicable, and apparently it is. This is one of the things we've been over. Of course the bulk of this, no matter which way you cut it, is going on general taxes, not on the home owners; although individual home owners could see an assessment, individual property owners rather, not on the home owners. (NAME INAUDIBLE): Am 1 understanding you correctly that according to the Duluth case, or whatever it is, none of the people to the north could be taxed? MAYOR WOODBURN: No, - assessed. (NAME INAUDIBLE): Assessed. Excuse me, but its possibly going to go on the general taxes. MAYOR WOODBURN: The houses that now have sewer the court says, it would be very difficult to prove their benefit, when they have sewer already, and, as such, they threw out the assessment on sewered houses. Even though it was a case similar to this where 8 ~ . . , the sewer was inadequate, none-the-1ess. they got rid of it off their property; therefore benefit was difficult to show. Taxes can be Village-wide; would be Village-wide. Mrs.Winiecki. JEANNE WINIECKI: How do you justify an assessment through swamp that is supposed to be set aside for park dedication? under the tower? the and MAYOR WOODBURN: The people owning the tower agreed to any assessments, in writing. The Council saw to that; so. they'd be paying part that otherwise would be going on taxes. Mr. Winiecki. JIM WINIECKI: These people up north that won't be assessed. How did we get an assessment for the water when we don't have it? MAYOR WOODBURN: You were assessed for the main, not an assessment for water service to your house; service to your house could be another assessment. It's the same as happened in other parts of the Village - a large main comes in - one area is not ready for water, but the main has to be paid for, and you have to have it - let's assume you do; so the whole area is served by a main and is assessed for the main; and later on there may be an assessment on your street if water came down there to serve you directly. That is routine. JEANNE WINIECKI: How does that differ from the sewer that we are talking about? . MAYOR WOODBURN: I'm doing an awful lot of talking. I'm going to get Mr. Christoffersen to talk. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: In this particular case. you were charged an area charge; obviously the 12" main does not go in front of your house; to get water to your house. a 6" to 8" main would have to be extended to your property. By putting the 12" main in. it put water that much closer to your property and the area charge is assessed to get the water closer to you. that's the reasoning behind it. The same thing is applied to the south end of Round lake in the area we have described. There is a sewer going through, a large sewer. The area immediately adjacent to it, beyond the 200'. but within the service area is proposed to be assessed. Only those areas that would most likely connect diret1y to it, not the area, for instance. - say the rendering plant is already connected to an existing sewer built by New Brighton; that area would not be assessed, because it would receive no benefit. There is some area to the west, or to the east, that is remote from the sewer, and those properties along 1-694 are away from the sewer, but are still closer to the sewer line, and the sewer is deep enough to where little short prices can get it to them. While now, they have to go a long way away. I guess that's the rationale behind the area assessment. 9 . Where you draw the line is sometimes based on judgement. For instance, when we were assessing water between Snelling and Hamline, we brought the water main up Hamline Avenue - where do we assess area? Well, it was relatively easy - we drew the line right down the middle; assessed this half to Hamline and this half to Snelling. LEONARD GRUDNOSKE, 4445 Highway 10. I don't know if this pertains to any thing, but, you indicated some of this would go on the general taxes, .for everybody, That would be fine, but how about Bethel College who continues to add to this problem, but doesn't pay taxes. In the first place, they run it down to Highway 10 when they shouldn't. They were supposed to run it toward the freeway when they built. They are half the problem right now and they aren't going to pay anything for this - no tax. . MAYOR WOODBURN: I'm not sure which way they ran it, or whether it made much of a problem, did it, Don? increased the probl em? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I'm not sure either. I recall there was some switching; that was before my time. I don't recall. All that happened somewhere in the early '70's. I believe the plan for the south area was planned to include the Bethel area. I don't know whether or not it has been assessed for sewer in the past. It could have been, because you can assess that kind of property. I don't believe it goes on taxes, but it can be assessed. We'd have to look to see. I don't know if it's relevant because the design of the sewer coming up from that side would take in a large area, or at least a part of that property. MAYOR WOODBURN: The major problem is north of Bethel north of where it drains in, at least, the area of overflow is north of there; north of where it comes into the system. It's the north end coming down. I suppose there's additive effect that everything together. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: To give you an idea, there is a 15" or 18" pipe, 15" 1 believe, coming up from County Road E2, and somewhere along there changes to a 12", does it not? We're talking about an 18" alone to New Brighton; so, that gives you an idea of what the flow is, and the problem we have. If we were to rebuild to the south, we'd have to start out with an 18" and go parallel and carry it all the way to the south, through the lift stations. JEANNE WINIECKI: Is this really the result of poor planning? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: I don't know how it would be poor planning. Council had good serious negotiations in the past and they apparently fell through. 1 remember reading one statement where the Council was all ready to sign an agreement with the arsenal, and they had a catch in the agreement that the arsenal had the right to have the City disconnected at any time. Do you remember that, Mrs. McNiesh? 10 . . . , . MRS. MCNIESH: No. I do not. That was before my time. MAYOR WOODBURN: Well, at all times, there was another sewer planned. There was never a time when some kind of main wasn't considered, as going to be necessary. JEANNE WINIECKI: It seems to me then the area that is going to be assessed hasn't caused the need. MAYOR WOODBURN: That is often the case. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Let me say this. At the time that all this action was going on, I don't believe that New Brighton sewer was an issue until - I want to say 1975, that we became aware that it was available for use, and that New Brighton even wanted the City to use it, and by that time the City was committed to a new line to the south. The City was against using it at that time because New Brighton didn't have enough capacity in that line, according to them - they only had a small amount - they wanted us to use that small amount, but not everything. Since Arden Hills was faced with building that whole line to the south, we thought that was the best way to proceed. It was only in 1980 or 1981 that New Brighton was able to realize that the capacity of that sewer they had barred Arden Hills, far exceeded what they had planned on; so, consequently, they came to us and asked us if we could use that additional capacity. Total - look back at the whole thing and had New Brighton been right at the very beginning, that would have been the best plan; so, I think what we're ending up with is th~ best plan. MAYOR WOODBURN: Just a short time more - if there are... are there any comments from any body that hasn't spoken yet? DON GROWER: I am a planner and I represent the Naegele Companies and their site, and 1 guess we're only concerned that there be some kind of a fair measure of benefit for assessment against the property. Secondly, we would feel that this is kind of an incentive for us to develop some site plans for the develop- ment of the property and we would like the sewer to follow a pattern that we would layout. That's our only comments. MAYOR WOODBURN: One more. JIM WINIECKI: What is the possibility that this project could be delayed and new owners consulted. MAYOR WOODBURN: That gets to be kind of indefinite. like the property over here. JIM WINIECKI: Then, like I said before, we get besieged by assessments going through us, let's spread this out for more people. MAYOR WOODBURN: anything... one more. 11 GEORGE WINIECKI: Either one of those plans, Plan A or Plan B, I can see the cost-wise of it going on the southern part of it, and I can see the benefits right along northern part, because there's already an easement there, but I guess I'm really not sold on either one right now, and I guess I want to go on record saying that I, living at 4175 Highway 10, do not want to see it go in. MAYOR WOOOBURN: Any body that hasn't spoken that would like to? We'll close the Public Hearing then at this time (8:20 p.m.). In discussion, Tom Oeans was asked if delayed assessments are feasible. Deans advised that there is no statutary procedure for delay of assessments, other than for senior citizens. Deans explained that if the project is to begin next spring, the assess- ment hearing would be scheduled in August of 1985; noted that at least $110,000 would have to be assessed (20% of $550,000 total . cost for Alternate 1). George Winiecki surmised that development of the Winiecki and Bussard properties could occur within the next year or two. Christoffersen said it would be best to fit the sewer to the needs of the properties, if this were known; feels the better plan, at present, is to run the sewer along the existing east/west water- main easement rather than through the center of either of the properties; noted it would be difficult for Bussard to use the sewer to the south along 1-694. Christoffersen said that the alignment of the sewer will be needed before fall of 1984 in order to prepare plans and specifications for advertisement for bids in the spring of 1985. Planner for Naegele reported that their property in the I-694/35W area of Arden Hills is on their list for him to plan or sell; noted that Naegele mayor may not develop the site themselves. Councilmember Rauenhorst then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution No. 84-14 RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT NO. 55-83-6 BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, that in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, as amended, the Council held a public hearing on the proposed construction of Improvement No. 55-83-6, consisting of the installation of trunk sanitary sewer and necessary appurtenances from Sewage Pumping Station No. 10 southerly to 1-694, then westerly to I-35W, just north of its intersection with 1-694, and then to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Interceptor located near I-35W in New Brighton, in the area as described in the Notice of Hearing, at a cost presently estimated at $580,000, and substantially in accordance with the preliminary report as to the feasibility thereof which is now of file in the 12 . . . , office of the Clerk Administrator; and having considered the views of all interested persons and being fully advised in the premises, the Council does hereby determine the order that said improvement shall be constructed and financed, and special assessments shall be levied{ therefore, pursuant to said Chapter 429, and that the area proposed to be assessed therefore shall include the property as described in the Notice of Hearing. The City Engineer is directed to prepare and submit to the Council the final plans and specifications. . The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Hicks, 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. 13