05-03-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MTG. - 5/3/83 Page three fM/S/P Fraser/Morgan to delay a decision on this subject to the agenda under Old Business. (Carried 5-0) B. Erosion Control Project, Lake Elmo Regional Reserve - Bohrer said Washington County has submitted plans and specifications for this third erosion control project. Since the project meets the Shoreland Ordinance's requirements for grading and filling, we recommend the issuance of a Shoreland Permit for the work. Elevations have been submitted in the construction drawings. Recommenda- tions that should be transmitted to the County are: 1. The retention dikes are designed on the basis of a 10-year storm. If much larger storms occur, portions of the dike may fail causing 3 to 4 acre-feet of water to move downstream rapidly. The County should not allow activities such as camping downstream of these structures. 2. Part of the work seems to extend onto Dayton -Hudson property. The County should acquire the necessary easements prior to construction. 3. The pipe outlets are not furnished with any rip rap or energy dissipa- tion. If erosion occurs, the County may have to perform some remedial action at a later date. M/S/P Morgan/Mazarra that the City approve a Shoreland Permit for the erosion control work in Washington County Regional Park and that the recommendations, Items 1 thru 3, in Larry Bohrer's letter of 3/3/83 be submitted to Mike Fox of Washington County. (Carried 5-0) C. Assessment Policy, Sealcoating - The public hearing for the proposed 6-year sealcoating program is scheduled for May 11 at Oakland Junior High. Should discuss proposed method of assessing, provide public with more accurate information, and explain that we could be included in Washington County's 1983 open -bid sealcoating program at a 10% savings over feasibility study if decision is made by May 13. Project must be assessed at least 20% up to a maximum of 100%; if we sell general obligation bonds to pay for improvement and assess less than 100%, the difference can be made up as an ad valorem tax over the entire community, which has been done in other communities. Reasoning for ad valorem is that people who do not live on these streets still use and benefit from City street network and lessens tax on individual. From $62-72,000 is allocated each year for a 3-year period. • Whittaker - we're probably going to have to use what we normally budget for sealcoating to pay for unpaid assessments (Green Acres - can't collect these assessments). • Eder - should start with a minimum of 10% paid by the City so we can get all streets in timeframe, therefore assessing 90% to abutting property owners. • Fraser - would consider going down to 80%. • Morgan - certainly 90% would be max, would like to get it lower. What would 90% assessment be on the average? (Bohrer - rates would vary from $.61 to .73 per front foot and would be a one-time assessment every sixth year.) • Tom Armstrong - My assessment would be $3,100 at 100% every six years, or $500/year forever. I think there should be footage limits (say, 200 feet) for streets going through farms since we were assessed $4,000 for gravelling in 1964; and the Council should consider large tracts since the public utilizes these through roads. Green Acres creates a time bomb since the interest which will have to be paid later adds up. Also, these assessments are not tax deductible.