Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-03-27 CC MIN• • 204 COUNCIL CHAMBER Stillwater, Minnesota March 27, 1979 7:30 P. M. SPECIAL MEETING The meeting was called to order by Mayor Junker. The Invocation was given by the City Clerk. Present: Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson, and Mayor Junker Absent: Councilman Powell Also Present City Finance Director /Coordinator, Kriesel; City Clerk, Schnell; City Atrorney, Magnuson; Superintendent of Public Works, Shelton; Consulting Engineers, Elliott and Moore; Planning Commission Chairman, Tom Farrell; Building Inspector, Niska Press: None Citizens: Edward Deiss, Clark Nyberg, Mrs. Tim Cowen, Dick Harold, Pat Bantli, Bill McDonald, Kathy Buck Al Borsheim, William Lecuyer, Wayne Johanson, Bill Torseth. PETITIONS On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson, a resolution was introduced "ACCEPTING THE PETITION FROM GANUS DEISS FOR SEWER AND WATER IN SOUTH HARRIET STREET, NORTH OF PINE STREET AND SETTING THE DATE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 10, 1979 AT 7:30 P. M." AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, a resolution was introduced "REQUESTING 1978 -79 PLANNING ASSISTANCE GRANT FUNDS FROM THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ". AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) 2. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a resolution was introduced "CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF NILE KRIESEL AS FINANCE OFFICER - /COORDINATOR AS OF APRIL 2, 1979 ". AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen H. Peterson, R. Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS- -None (see resolutions) 3. On motion of Councilman Harry Peterson, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson the Contract for the copying machine was awarded for the Sevin Plain Copier #700 as recommended by the Finance Officer /Coordinator. (all in favor) 4. This was the day and time set for the public hearing on Local Improvement No. 151 for the utility improvements and street improvements for Interlachen Plats One and Two. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on March 16 and 23, 1979 and copies were mailed to all property owners benefited by the proposed improvements. The Mayor opened the hearing. MR. ELLIOTT explained the location of the two plats for which the improvements are to be made - the improvements include sewers, watermains, storm sewers drainage under Trunk Highway 12 and a lift station to tie in with the comprehensive sewer plan for the City of Stillwater and this will connect with the forcemain that was put in at the time of the construction of County No. 12 in 1976 which was paid for by the City which rerminates at Owen and Myrtle. The watermain is an extension of the main that serves the Croixwood area and stubs were provided for this so that they will not have to go back into the Croixwood Streers for this work. This project includes the grading and the improvement of the shaded streets on the maps. The streets would be 30 feet in width with a multiple type curb. The cost of the improvements for Interlachen Plat No. 1 and abutting area are: eka WWI �.J a • • • 1 • • • 0 A • March 27, 1979 Sanitary Sewer $115,700 Watermains 87,800 Streets 173,240 Storm Sewers 47,200 Total $423,940 (This is exclusive of the Lift Station which has an area wide benefit and exclusive of a pipe going underneath County Road No. 12 which is referred to as a trunk sewer which has area wide benefit) The net cost per lot is $8,000 exclusive of the land costs and the lift station costs. INTERLACHEN TWO - There is no storm sewer necessary for this plat - the cost of the utilities and streets - Sanitary Sewer - $32,740. Watermain 34,600 Street 9,900 Total $77,240 Cost per lot - $19,310 (The remoteness of the development from the sewer and that there is no benefit to abutting property enroute by the extension of the sewer accounts for this high cost). The cost of the lift station and the trunk sewer and the forcemain and the cost of the forcemain constructed in 1976 by the City including 67, interest over the period of time for that investment is $127,750 (that lift station will ultimately serve 235 acres at a cost benefit of $544 per acre for the lift station, forcemain and trunk sanitary sewer). Mr. Elliott explained the full area that will be served by the new lift station. Most of the area is in the Township - 163 acres Township and 72 acres in the City of Stillwater. BILL LECUYER, Boutwell Road, failed to see the benefit to area wide - he has 100 acres - and Mr. Elliott explained that if his area was ever to be developed the only way it could be served with sanitary sewer is through the installation of a lift station at the location indicated on the map. MR. LECUYER stated that his property is very much higher than the property in the City of Stillwater and that the existing lines in the area do not have the capacity to service this enlarged area according to Mr. Elliott. He felt that he was getting nothing for the possible $55,000 which would be assessed to his property for these improvements. DICK HUELSMAN, 1524 West Myrtle Street, questioned why the entire assessment could not be charged to the developer and that most of the property other than the petitioners is owned by the City and the School District and he felt that it would be of no benefit to his property. MAYOR JUNKER asked if Reliance Development was made to pay the entire cost, would the City have the right to charge other citizens who wanted to hookup to the lift station and MR. ELLIOTT stated that there would be no way to recover more than the original cost. From the standpoint of City policy lift stations which have an area benefit and would benefit the property that would ultimately discharge sewage or be pumping into the system - there is the possibility of putting in a smaller lift station which would have to be removed and replaced which would not be good planning. MAYOR JUNKER asked if it would be legal, if Reliance paid the full amount for them to get back some of this money and MR. MAGNUSON stated he had never seen it handled by the developer as the City would own the sewers - the way it is done, the City would finance and charge them for a hookup charge (that is one possibility) which would mean that the City would be bank rolling several hundred thousand dollars of improvements with no guarantee of the development. MR. ELLIOTT cited the following options for the special cost recovery consider- ations of this project: 1. The area must become annexed to the City of Stillwater for the City to impose an assessment. 2. If the area is not annexed, Stillwater Township must hold a hearing on the lift stion portion of the project in order that the Township can collect the assessments and forward same to the City. 3. A connection charge could be established for each lift station service area for cost recovery. This would require that the total district be developed within the bond retirement period. WILLIAM LECUYER asked if these assessments would be collectible when the land is sold or developed and MR. MAGNUSON stated when it is connected to the system and that this is the problem that the City have assurance that within the next five or ten years that the property would be developed and a hookup needed they could take a risk on bank rolling it - bit if it took 20 years and the bonds had already been retired, then the City would have no way to meet their obligations without taking the money out of the General Fund. The City could treat it as a hookup charge and defer it. 205 • • • • • •" O6 • March 27, 1979 BILL MC DONALD asked that Mr. Elliott explain the details of the lift station. MR. ELLIOTT stated that a similar project like this went on about ten years ago on the east side of Lily Lake and the options were to go small or go big which involved the current Industrial Park which was in Stillwater Township and it cost very little more to make it larger because the pumps are what have to be larger - -the facility, the tank has to be the same size regardless whether there are 100 gallons per minute pumped into them or 300 gallons per minute. There would be less cost if the smaller one went in. The breakdown on the costs would be - the trunk main is $3,000, the cropping under County 12 is $17,000. The lift station is $24,500 for the larger one and the smaller one would be about $15,000. The 10 inch forcemain (this could be four inches if it were just for this develop- ment), but would have to be replaced later for future development. The cost of same would be $85,000 and the forcemain that was put in the ground in 1976 is $29,400 and there is also the legal and fiscal and engineering costs. Putting the smaller lift station in might save about $25,000 or a total of $100,000 lift station and forcemain and trunk main facilities instead of $127,500. s MR. LECUYER asked where all the foresight was two years ago when the pipe was put under Boutwell Road and now they have to put a bigger one and he stated that the pipe put under County 12 was put in by the County and it is adequate in size and will serve the drainge and what he was talking about now was the sanitary sewer which will be taken care of by the lift station - there is nothing wrong with the pipe that is currently in there for the drainage. Mr. Lecuyer felt that the cost of the sewer for those four lots was fantastic. MR. COWEN requested that they want only one sewer hookup between Lots 9 and 10 since if they sell the lot, they intend to split Lot 10 and half of Lot 9 and half to Lot 11, and she was informed that if the project is voted in, then she could request this matter. A CITIZEN stated that he owns the corner piece at County 12 and he was informed that the only assessment would be for the proposed lift station at $544 per acre and he would pay when he ties in with the system. He asked what benefit he would have from this and MR. ELLIOTT stated that his property could not be served without the lift station and he made reference to having pad $375.00 to the Metro Waste for the SAC charge and asked what he got out of that and he was informed that this is his share of the interceptors. ,ma AL BORSHEIM, Stillwater Township Supervisor, asked what the alternative was if the Township does not go along with the assessments. MR. ELLIOTT stated that the developer would possibly ask that the lift station be made smaller and the forcemain and it is possible that the developer will feel the improvements would be pricing the development out of the market. It is the nature of the location of the property and many other things that brings the cost up so high. He personally did not feel that this area could be served strictly by gravity and this is part of the total plan which was developed in 1971 and look at it again in 1973. Each time he submits a plan to the Metro Waste they check it to see that it is in conformance with the over -all plan. MR. BORSHEIM stated that as a Stillwater Township Supervisor he was reluctant to vote in favor of any assessments in this area - the Township has not an area designated at 2% acre lot size and development has been going on at 2k acres and greater lot size with on -site systems that are fairly new which have an estimated life span of 15 years for the originals and enough areas for additional sites for another 15 years - he felt that they would be hard pressed to get any use out of that area for 25 to 30 years. KATHY BUCK, Stillwater Township Chairman, felt that an assessment of that amount of money is actually going to cause premature development of a more density nature than what has already been agreed to with the City and that is what was agreed to in the Orderly Annexation Agreement not to allow any parcels of less than 2k acres and could not see this as a benefit. She felt that this is a very difficult decision 0 "" that the City of Stillwater is putting them in on this project. MAYOR JUNKER stated that if the Reliance Development Corporation wants to develop they should be made aware that the Stillwater Township does not want any assess- ments made against their properties. TOM FARRELL asked if they were assessing people in Fairmeadows and what was happening to the people on the south side of Interlachen. MR. ELLIOTT stated that the lots that are abutting Interlachen Lot 11 could be assessed for street and there are two lots that do not have sewer and water than would have to be assessed. a • • • • • • • • A r 0 March 27, 1979 DICK HUELSMANN stated that the property he owns has easement rights to hook onto to the sewer on Birchwood Drive when that was developed and they gave up some of their property - easement and hook -on rights - did not know why he should be involved in this assessment when he already has these rights and he has this written into his deed, and this was all worked out with Henry Radle. WAYNE JOHANSON, Boutwell Road, just adjacent to this area and one of the reasons for moving to this area was to get away from the City water and sewer and not have to worry about the problems of living in a City. He felt with this type of assessment they are actually being forced upon these people. MRS. COWEN who lives on the corner of Crestwood Terrace and Interlachen and she asked that if the Interlachen were to be put down the middle point it would take 117 of the trees on her property and she requested that the stree be built to the north of the middle point and MR. ELLIOTT assured her that if the project is voted in that they would be glad to work with her on this matter. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council recessed the hearing on Local Improvement No. 151 until they get a response from Stillwater Township on the matter. (all in favor) THE MAYOR DECLARED A RECESS FROM 8:35 to 8:45 P. M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - - -MR. ELLIOTT reviewed the proposed improvements for County 66 so that the new supervisors could be fully informed on this project as explained to the full Council and the other Township Supervisors on March 6, 1979. KATHY BUCK inquired if there could be a control structure with an open ditch and MR. ELLIOTT stated that because of the erosion in this area that it is necessary to have the pipe. JIM TORSETH, Press On, inquired about the letter that the Council received in reference to this project. He questioned the right -of -way for ponding areas and was concerned about the Oasis Pond. MR. ELLIOTT stated that they are proposing a pond to the right and that the ownership of the existing pond goes out into the pond and that the State was involved in a meeting on this matter. MR. TORSETH stated that there is a natural outfall to the north of the Oasis Pond now and that the natural outflow does cause quite extensiveponding to the indicated pond area to the north and he was looking for an interpretation of tradition which dictates in that kind of a case and that Oasis Pond does have water in it all of the time and that the water comes from the same source to both of these areas. MR. ELLIOTT stated that if it is currently a pond perhaps it is not worth much if you are going to buy it as a pond, but the City would like to have control over it and did not know how an appraiser would look at it. The natural flow is to the north and then to an underground pipe which goes under County 66 and down by Somerset Systems and then to the Brick PonT. The State Highway Depart- ment is doing the work on the existing pond with the County and there will be filling and some excavation work done in this area. It has been City policy that once an area is completed with storm sewers that you get assessed one time - but it is proposed that if a street goes in on the westerly part of Orleans there could be some more improvements, but that would be taken out of MSA Funds. MR. TORSETH stated that they would definitely be in favor of a pipe rather than an open ditch and another concern was what was the capacity of the 24 inch pipe and what is the control over this if any. MR. ELLIOTT stated that the normal level of this pond is 910 which is very close to the ice level out there this winter and the high could be up to 916.5 and that would temporarily be allowed to rise and that is the reason that the pipe can be as small as it is with the 24 inch coming in. They did check the high level of the pond against the rock terracing which has been used to improve the building site and he could show them the levels that they have in their files. MR. TORSETH stated that they are concerned as there have been prior ponding problems and he raised questions as to which terrace level the ponding would come to and he will get a sketch to them as to this level and MR. TORSETH stated that this is all natural terracing and create problemsfor them. 207 ' • 1 • • • • S • • 208 March 27, 1979 MR. ELLIOTT stated that the Hauge property assessment for the storm sewer would be roughly 60 per square foot of area which would be within this drainage district, and for a commercial area that is not too bad of an assessment. If the Town Board would have a hearing and order the improvement at the same time the City would, the Township would collect the assessments and then turn them over to the City. Wity sewer or water there would be a lever on a connection which you must pay before you connect, but storm sewer if the drainage is in, there is just no way to collect it at a later date, unless you could withhold a building permit - he was not familiar with that type of program. There was a discussion about the "Green Acres" portion within the boundaries of these improvements and Mr. Elliott pointed them out on the map. AL BORSHEIM asked why the City doesn't assess MR. Hauge and the Council informed him that they can't and he stated that they could not either. DAVID MAGNUSON stated that the Township would have to a couple of things; first of all they would have to spread the assessments against the benefited property, they would have to collect the assessments from the auditor each year and dis- perse them to the City. There would be no liability on the Township for the bonds because it would purely be a financial obligation of the City. He felt it would necessitate a Joint Powers Agreement nothing more than a contract setting out the various responsibilities and the concerns of the Township getting stuck . with some of the assessments that might be defeated or we could address ourselves to that in the contract and he was sure no one contemplated the Township having any obligation other than administrative obligation and perhaps there would be a service charge to the administrative handling of these funds. KATHY BUCK stated that their concern was about their liability beyond the assess- ing of the benefited property and she would have to ask their attorney to look this matter over and have it scheduled for a regular Town Board meeting. MR. MC DONALD requested that Mr. Elliott figure the assessments on this project for the properties in the Township and he agreed that this would not take too long and he would be agreeable to do that. AL BORSHEIM asked about the time requirement for odering the improvement and MR. HAROLD from the County stated that the plans have been drawn and they are waiting for these assessment hearings to be completed and voted in before they can start purchasing the right -of -way and they would be looking for the County Board's permission for the letting of bids or advertising for bids - the earlier they advertise usually the better the bids come in. KATHY BUCK indicated that they have two new members on the Board and this was their first opportunity to hear and discuss this improvement and the property owners have also been heard at the meeting on March 6th. MR. MAGNUSON indicated that the City has 6 months after the hearirg to order the improvement and he felt that the City has already ordered it by the previous action. KATHY BUCK stated that there are two things that they need before they make their decision - the calculations of the assessments and the copy of the Joint Powers Agreement. 2. - - -The tentative date of April 18th was set for the joint meeting with Stillwater Township regarding annexations. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council authorized the Mayor to sign the two easements in the area of the Consolidated Lumber property on South Main Street now owned by Gerald and Ruth Perkl. (all in favor) 2. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson, the Council authorized the Mayor to sign the perpetual easement for the Dominium Corporation for the Hi -Rise on North Second Street. (all in favor) 3. JACK SHELTON stated that last year there was $3,500 budgeted for a salt shed and he would like to use this money to purchase a used grader. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson, the Council authorized the purchase of the used grader and using the budgeted monies for the salt shed for the payment of same. (all in favor) • r • NEW L.� • • • • • r L to RESOLUTIONS March 27, 1979 4. Mayor Junker informed the Council that there was $4,000 in equipment purchased from Hooley's T. V. in 1974 and there was an additional $1,700 which was ordered and never picked up by the City and this equipment is still in his shop. Considerable discussion followed and Councilwoman Bodlovick volunteered to check into this matter and report back to the Council on this matter. The following resolutions were read and on roll call were unanimously adopted: 1. Requesting 1978 -79 Planning Assistance Grant Funds from the Metropolitan Council (repass) 2. Confirming Appointment of Nile L. Kriesel as Permanent Finance Officer/ Coordinator - April 2, 1979. 3. Acce, ing Petition and Ordering Hearing for Local Improvement No. 163 -South Harriet Street Sewer and Water. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 P. M. City lerk ,4LY„inz Mayor • 209; • • • •