Loading...
11-21-1983 CC MIN REGULAR WEEKLY MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL HELD AT SALK JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL CHOIR ROOM NOVEMBER 21, 1983 Members Present: Mayor Hinkle, Councilmembers Engstrom, Duitsman, Schuldt and Gunkel Members Absent: None 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Hinkle. 2. Agenda Item 8~, a Ridgewood sign, was added to the November 21, 1983 City Council agenda. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM MOVED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 21, 1983 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AS AMENDED. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 3. Minutes COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 7, 1983 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 14, 1983 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 4. Open Mike No one appeared for this item. 5. Assessment Hearing for Gates Avenue Improvement Project - Storm Water Improvements Public Hearing Mayor Hinkle opened the public hearing with some opening comments. Mayor Hinkle indicated that an assessment hearing, specifically a storm sewer assess- ment hearing, is one of the hardest things for a council to consider. Mayor Hinkle indicated that a council must consider benefit gained, and people living on a hill do not seem to have a water problem, therefore, what is the benefit, but that they are still part of the watershed district, as all of the water does not stay on the property on the hill. Mayor Hinkle indicated that he grew up in the Red River Valley of North Dakota where water and water runoff and the problems that were created with water runoff was a very real part of his life. Mayor Hinkle further indicated that water is our greatest asset if it is controlled. Mayor Hinkle indicated that a good share of the project is completed and that the project is not a new idea as the City Council has held a number of hearings in relation to the storm water drainage. Mayor Hinkle indicated that it is the City Council's responsibility to assess the cost of the project to the benefiting properties. Mayor Hinkle further indicated that he understands that many people, expecially the retired senior Page Two City Council Minutes November 21, 1983 citizens, may have trouble paying for the assessment. Mayor Hinkle indicated that the public hearing is held to try to hear everyone and to deal with problems such as acreage assessed, or if the assessment is done improperly, but further indicated that the project has been completed and the cost would have to be assessed. Councilmember Gunkel indicated that she was sensitive to the feelings that have been generated by the construction of the storm sewer project and ultimately, the assessment of those costs. Councilmember Gunkel indicated that she understood that the seemingly "benefit" is very obscure and hard to see. Councilmember Gunkel indicated that she has been involved with the project from the beginning and since serving on the Council, has had direct involvement which has caused her to research and question all of the aspects of the comprehensive plan of the storm sewer project. Councilmember Gunkel indicated that she is also involved with the Star Cities Program, specifically, the five-year Capital Improvement Program. Councilmember Gunkel indicated that in that five-year plan, west Main Street would have to be considered for storm sewer and that those people would then have .to pay for storm drainage work necessary for their area. Councilmember Gunkel thanked the community for their general spirit of cooperation through the construction project. Councilmember Schuldt indicated that he lived on the high ground of Main Street and therefore, could relate to the people's concerns about paying for a storm sewer project when they did not have the water problem themselves. Councilmember Schuldt indicated that even though there are people living on the high ground, they still do contribute to a total water drainage system. Councilmember Engstrom.indicat~dthathedoes not have a storm sewer out in the country but they do have county tile for drainage and that also has to be paid for by all those that contribute to the drainage problems. Mayor Hinkle then asked Mr. Jeff Roos of Consulting Engineers Diversified to review the chronology of the storm sewer project, the types of assessment and the costs of the project. Mr. Jeff Roos indicated that in 1981, the City Council considered the improvement to School Street and further indicated that in the consideration of the improvement to School Street, it was determined necessary to also doa storm sewer project for School Street. Mr. Roos indicated that this in turn required a study of the total drainage basin and a recommendation that would meet the needs currently and in the future. Mr. Roos indicated that Consulting Engineers Diversified did a storm water study, defining a total drainage basin by way of the land layout and its limits. Mr. Roos indicated that Consulting Engineers Diversified submitted 3 or 4 various possibilities that would provide a system that worked, which would involve piping, ditching, and ponding, and after looking at the costs of the various possibilities and how they would be financed, a sumarized analysis was presented to the City Council. Mr. Roos indicated that the City Council selected a projectthat was most cost effective. Mr. Jeff Roos reviewed the projects costs from the feasibility study for a trunk line and a lateral line. Mr. Roos indicated that the trunk rate would be assessed to every drainage basin and that some areas would receive that assessment now and some in the future whereby the costs would be assessed at comparable dollars. Mr. Jeff Roos indicated that the City Council proceeded to order the project for the area that would be served by a trunk line that would be placed from the River to Main Street, up Gates Avenue, to the PUD Page ThI;"ee City Council Minutes November 21, 1983 and west over 5th Street to the bog area. Mr. Roos indicated that Area B of the total area would be assessed both the trunk line and lateral line rate and the other areas would be assessed a trunk line assessment. Mr. Roos indicated that the costs in the 1982 feasibility study were approximately $788,500 with approxi- mately $200,000.00 contributed by MSA funds which resulted in a typical lot assess- ment of $435.00. Mr. ROos indicated that a year later, bids were taken and the project was constructed. Mr. Roos further indicated that the final costs for the project were $725,400, with overhead costs at $159,500 for a total cost of $884~900. Mr. Roos indicated that the contributed MSA funds amounted to $252,000 which re- sulted in a final typical lot assessment of $443.00 which is within $8.00 of the original projected cost. The City Administrator then provided information to the audierice regarding the actual assessment. The City Administrator indicated that it is proposed that the assessment will run 15 years at a 10.75 percent interest rate. The City Ad.,.. ministrator further indicated that any resident could pay the assessment in full or make a partial payment within 30 days of the November 21, 1983 hearing date. The City Administrator also reviewed the areas assessed which included the school district and the bog area. The City Administrator indicated that the whole City pays for a portion of the assessment through school district taxes and also through City taxes for the bog area. Mayor Hinkle then opened the public hearing. Discussion was carried on regarding the feasibility study costs and the actual costs. Mr. Jim Goodin of 518 Jackson, questioned the weighted acres assessment. Mr.Jeff Roos indicated that the assessment was done on proposed land use and that commercial areas do contribute more to water runoff than the residential areas, therefore, commercial areas are assessed at 1~ times more than residential. Discussion was carried on regarding the disruption of the water and sewer service. Mrs. Pipenhagen questioned the improvement to 3rd Street from Hagen's grocery store to Gates Avenue and who was to pay for that improvement. The City Adminsitrator indicated that in the original project some sewer work was planned and that the City was approached by two owners of property on 3rd Street, requesting that the City authorize a complete restoration of 3rd Street. The City Administrator in- dicated that the change order for the complete restoration of 3rd Street was approximately $3,500 with the two property owners contributing $2,000 and the balance paid by State Aid money. Discussion was also carried on regarding completion of the project. Mr. Jeff Roos indicated that the contractors would come back and finish the project in the Spring with the completion of a second layer of blacktop on Gates Avenue and the sodding, seeding and fill that was necessary. Mr. Roos indicated that by completing the project in the Spring, it would allow the streets to go through a freeze-thaw cycle to make sure there were no problems with the street before the contract was satisfied and final payment was made. Page Four City Council Minutes November 21, 1983 Mr. Pat Donahue indicated that he was concerned with the flow of water from Holt Avenue and 4th, as it comes down into the back of the Post Office building. Mr. Donahue indicated that he did not feel water drainoff should be running through private property and he was therefore putting the City Council on notice that something will need to be done in the near future. Mr. Tom Woods asked how the drainage basin was defined and further questioned why the areas to the north designated as parcels M,L, J, H and I were not included in the drainage area to be assessed when they ultimately would be using the trunk line. Mr. Jeff Roos indicated that as the areas to the north are developed, holding ponds would be constructed to hold the water until the water to the south is drained through the trunk line and then the water would be released on a timed basis. Mr. Roos further indicated that at that time, those people in those areas would pay for the lateral lines and holding ponds. Mr. Roos indicated that the size of the trunk line installed is necessary and feasible for the area it currently serves. Ms. Linda Hageseth indicated that she was a resident in Area C and that Area C was being assessed for future use of the trunk line. Mr. Roos indicated that the trunk line was available to area C by the extension of a lateral line, whereby the property to the north of the defined assessment area could not use the trunk line without further construction of holding ponds and lateral lines. Further discussion was carried on regarding the size of the trunk line, the area assessed for benefit and the proposed future development of drainage areas to the north. Further discussion was also carried on regarding benefit to the City through the proposed Lion's Park. Mayor Hinkle indicated that the whole City would be pay- ing for an assessment of the park land and further indicated that the community also helps pay for the project through the school taxes, as the school was assessed for a portion of the storm sewer project. Mr. Lloyd Barthel of Elk River Machine, questioned the assessment for industrial land next to the bog area and the assessment of the bog property. Mr. Barthel also questioned notices mailed to businesses and indicated that his business did not re- ceive notice. The City Administrator indicated that the original feasibility study and the public hearing regarding the original feasibility study discussed the weighed acres proposal. The City Administrator indicated that the weighted acres are assessed to industrial and commercial zoned properties. Mr. Dan Hageseth indicated that the people in Area C are requested to help pay for the trunk line through an assessment, but have not been specifically told that they will have a lateral line in order to use that trunk line. Councilmember Duitsman indicated that the City Council has ordered plans and specifications and that it is the plan of the City Council to complete Main Street and build the lateral line in 1984. Mr. Marv Dawson, resident at 126 Evans, indicated that his property is used for a catch basin and thatilIhere can be at times, two feet of water in his yard. The City Administrator indicated that the City's engineers will look at his property and consider a solution to the problem during the designing of the plans for the Main Street project. Page Five City Council Minutes November 21, 1983 Ms. Peggy Bode questioned the possibility of the City arbitrarily changing an assessment placed on a property. Ms. Carol Mills, representative of the senior citizens highrise, requested that she be acknowledged and retain the right of appeal should her board of directors Tequest that right once they have met. Mayor Hinkle closed the public hearing. General discussion was carried on regarding the County's records, the corrections that needed to be made and the possibility of missing variou~ properties when notices are sent. The City Administrator indicated that the changes to the pro- posed assessment roll are as follows: 1. There were some various name changes to be made 2. There were some changes with acreage for Elk River Machine 3. There were also some acreage changes for the Cooley and the Bod~ property 4. There was a change in the Bud Houlton property, deleting the dedicated road right-of-way. 5. Lot size change for Marv Dawson 6. Property owned by Mr. Cliff Lundberg would have the lateral benefit deleted, as well as properties owned by David Bakken, Oliver Micheau, Douglas Johnson and Clarence Anderson, located in the same area. The City AdminisFrator further indicated that there were some letters of objection filed with the City. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 83-23, A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE 1983 GATES AVENUE STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AS AMENDED. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0. 6. Assessment Hearing for Gates Avenue Improvement Project - Road Improvements - Public Hearing Mayor Hinkle indicated that the public hearing is to be held for the road improve- ment through the Planned Unit Development. The City Administrator indicated that in the Gates Avenue improvement project, the MSA roadway is constructed from the intersection of Gates Avenue and Main Street north along the existing Gates Avenue to 5th Street, then north and easterly through the Planned Unit Development, to a point of intersection with School Street. The City Administrator indicated that the roadway is designed to be 46 feet in width on the southerly portion. and 50feet-:i:.n widthontihe northerly.port:con tihtotigh the Planned Unit Development. The City Administrator further indicated that the project includes curb and gutter along the length of the roadway and sidewalk in the Planned Unit Development area. The City Administrator indicated that in the Council's original discussion, it was determined that the area to be assessed for the roadway would only include the Planned Unit Development and that the southerly portion of the roadway would not be assessed. The City Administrator further indicated that as a part of the City Council's discussion of the Gates Avenue improvement project, the City Council agreed that the street assessment in the Planned Unit Development would Page Six City Council Minutes November 21, 1983 be deferred until development occurs, or, for a maximum of 3 years from the date the assessment was levied, and further indicated that the deferred assessment would be at 8 percent interest. The City Administrator indicated that the street construction cost of the roadway was $125,400 with overhead costs at $28,450 for a total assessable cost to the Planned Unit Development of $153,850. Mayor Hinkle opened the public hearing. Mr. Cliff Lundberg questioned the 8 percent interest for the deferred assessment. The City Administrator indicated that as the City does not have to payiuterest for the money used to construct the roadway, the City does not have an interest expense, and therefore, the City is governed by State Statute which allows up to eight percent interest to be charged. Mr. Gary Santwire expressed his opposition to the deferment of the assessment and the interest rate. Mr. Santwire indicated that the City could invest that money used for the road project at a higher rate of interest. Discussion was carried on regarding the construction of the roadway in the Planned Unit Development, the contribution to the storm sewer costs by MSA funds, and the deferment of the assessments in the Planned Unit Development. The City Administra- tor indicated that the City Council agreed to defer the assessments, as the developer was not ready for the project and yet it made sense to construct the road because of the MSA funds provided. Councilmember Gunkel indicated that she was not in favor of the deferment of the assessments or the construction of the street in the Planned Unit Development area as the developer was not ready for development of the property. Councilmember Duitsman indicated that he felt the storm sewer project should be com- pleted and the deferment of the assessments would help the developer and therefore would ultimately be of benefit to the whole City. Mayor Hinkle indicated that the storm drainage has been a problem facing the City for a long time and further indicated that the MSA funds had accumulated for use by the City of Elk River and that it was pointed out to the City that they must use those funds or they would lose allocated MSA funds in future years. Mayor Hinkle indicated that the City Council then designated specific MSA roads in the City of Elk River. Mayor Hinkle further indicated that at that time, the City Council also had to address the storm drainage problem. Mayor Hinkle indicated that he felt the use of MSA funds for Gates Avenue and the storm sewer drainage project was in the best interest of the City and because the developer was not ready for development in the Planned Unit Development, he also felt it was in the best in- terest of the City to allow the deferment of the assessments in the Planned Unit Development for 3 years or when development begins. Discussion was also carried on regarding the road width and design criteria by the State. Mayor Hinkle closed the public hearing. Page Seven City Council Minutes November 21, 1983 COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE STREET CONSTRUCTION THROUGH THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $153,850 TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. Councilmember Engstrom indicated that he was in agreement with the Mayor and Council- member Duitsman regarding the construction of the road in the Planned Unit De- velopment and the deferment of the assessments. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE DEFERMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OR UNTIL DEVELOPMENT STARTS, WHICH EVER COMES FIRST, AT AN INTEREST RATE OF EIGHT PERCENT (8%). COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-1. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL OPPOSED. 7. Robert Lehn Request for Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing The City Administrator indicated that Mr. Robert Lehri of 21019 York Street in Elk River has requested a conditional use permit to construct a four-unit townhome at 348 Holt Avenue. The City Administrator indicated that in reviewing Mr. Lehn's re- quest it became apparent that Mr. Lehn does not have title to the property, nor does he have sufficient legal interest or option to purchase the property. The City Administrator further indicated that it is recommended that the City Council deny the request by Mr. Robert Lehn, on the basis that Mr. Lehn does not have sufficient legal interest in the property to make the request for the conditional use per- mit. Mayor Hinkle opeaed the public hearing. No one appeared for or in opposition of the conditional use request. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT MOVED TO DENY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY MR. ROBERT LEHN TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-UNIT TOWNHOME AT 348 HOLT AVENUE. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 8. Project Pay Estimates The City Administrator indicated that the pay estimates are for the Heavenly Hills improvement project and the Gates Avenue improvement project. The City Administra- tor further indicated that Pay Estimate #1 for the Heavenly Hills improvement project is in the amount of $32,744.60 and that Pay Estimate #3 for the Gates Avenue improvement in the amount of $403,220.62. COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE PAY ESTIMATE #1 FOR THE HEAVENLY HILLS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO S & L CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,744.60 AND PAY ESTIMATE 113 FOR THE GATES AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO BARBAROSSA AND SONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $403,220.62. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 8~. Ridgewood Sign Councilmember Duitsman indicated that there was a home occupation sign on a residence in the Ridgewood Addition and asked that the City Administrator have his staff look into the situation. Page Eight City Council Minutes November 21, 1983 9. Check Register COUNCILMEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 21, 1983 CHECK REGISTER. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. 10. Tentative Agenda The watermain improvement project and bond sale and the Bud Houlton gift agreement are items tentatively scheduled for the November 28, 1983 City Council meeting. There being no further business, COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. ~17kS~tted' .~ Phyll1s BOedigheim~ Deputy City Clerk/Treasurer PB:dk