Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-10-81 CCMLITTLE SUNFISH ASSESSMENT HEARING, MARCH 10, 1981 Mayor Eder opened the hearing at 9:10 p.m. , Engineer Bohrer reviewed the project and explained the assessment method. The total project cost will be assessed at $51.37 per acre. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: John Leslie 11546 20th St. - asked who petitioned for;`,the project .. Administrator Whittaker replied Cimarron did. John Leslie - stated this was.ai anticipatory project with no immediate danger. He gave the past history of the Cimarron plant and water flow in the area, and stated that there was no flooding on Little Sunfish until Cimarron was built. He reviewed Cimarronb petitions to the PCA for release of treated effluent into the lake; and recommended that the City verify that this is not cur- rently being done. Mike Ahrens Cimarron - stated that Cimarron has not dumped treated effluent into Little Sunfish. John Leslie stated that the increase of water is primarly since the development of Cimarron, and this project was undertaken to protect a private enterprise. Tartan Park, 3M, has opposed the project from the beginning and said they derive no benefit. Cimarron is the only one benefitting. He feels a.precident is being established and asked if Tartan Park could request a like project with the costs being assessed. Mayor Eder said this question is hypothetical. John Leslie - stated as in the past, they oppose the project, derive no benefit, and oppose any assessment to Tartan Park. Jim Flannery - Attorney representing Bob Kraeger, 1381 Lk, Elmo Ave. Mr. Kraeger has 18.69 acres within the assessed area. The land is in the extreme western portion of the watershed. The assessed amount is $960. Mr. Flannery reviewed the file and feels Cimarron, is responsible for this project. He said Mr. Kraeger receives no benefit and suggested the City consider an assessment technique that not only utilizes the parcel and its proximity to the improvement, but the impervousness of the parcel and the benefit derived. He recommended Cimarron assume the total liability for the project. He questioned Tartan Park's pumping of ponds and the impact of this on the project. In Mr. Kraeger's behalf, he opposes any assessment based on the location of the Kraeger property &the fact that this property does not contribute or benefit from the improvement. LITTLE SUNFISH ASSESSMENT PROJECT -2- John Leslie - refuted several of Mr. Flannery's remarks about Tartan Park. All pumping has been done with the required permits. They have determined that this does not contribute,at all to Little Sunfish Lake Mary Leslie - asked Mr. Ahrens to clarify their effluent pumping. Mayor Eder reminded Mrs. Leslie that all questions must be relevant to the assessment. He will contact the PCA and request records indicating Cimarron's pumping schedule. Ray Silas 404 Lake Elmo Ave - opposes his $562 assessment. He said all his water stays to the south of the highway property he sold the state eight years ago. He indicated his property and the State property on the map. Engineer Bohrer said that the tax records list Mr. Silas as the owner of record for the State property. Mr. Silas said that none of his property is within the assessed area. Mike Ahrens Cimarron - answered remarks concerning Cimarron. He said the rise of Sunfish started in 1977-78. Cimarron Park has been in existance since 1970, sufficient time to notice if Cimarron was the cause. He agreed the project was anticipatory but calculations by the City Engineer and additional testing determined that the water would rise sufficiently without pumping, to endanger the Cimarron treatment plant. Although a great benefit was derived by Cimarron, the benefit to residents in the area and around the lake was the fact that effluent would not overflow into Little Sunfish and pollute the water. The rise of the water was caused by an overall rise of the water table in the area. Mr. Ahrens felt the assessment indicated was practical and appropriate. John Leslie - Noted there were 500 affected properties in Cimarron vs one homesite in Tartan Park. He disagrees with the distribution of the assessment. Mayor Eder closed the hearing at 9:35 p.m. This will be on the March 17 agenda. PUBLIC HEARING, MARCH 10, 1981 LEGION POND ASSESSMENT Mayor Eder called the hearing to order at 8:37 p.m. Engineer Bohrer reviewed the project and explained the assessment method, stating the project and feasibility study was initiated by a petition from residents around Legion Pond. The Engineer prepared a Feasibility Study on lowering the level of Legion Pond. The study determined additional testing was warranted and the residenta=in the area requested that test wells be sunk to determine the relation of the ground water to the surface water. The wells determined that the level of the pond was supported by the ground water. The total project cost was $7,876.54. Resulting work, based on the study, was to fill several of the yards abutting the pond. The City made fill available to the residents and allowed a credit for the value of hauling the fill in an amount of $4;309:20, This was applied against the total project cost; leaving the net to be assessed at $3,567.54. The proposed assessments were divided in two ways. $100 of the total cost is proposed to be assessed for each of the petitioning lots which do not abut the pond. The remainding $493.51 is proposed to be assessed to each petitioning lot that does abut -the pond. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: Dan Collyard 2814 Legion - Asked how the assessed amount compares to the first estimated cost? Larry Bohrer - said the estimated cost given at the feasibility hearing was for pumping. Dan Collyard - said he thought the first estimated cost included the test wells and was less than $5,000. Why the higher cost. Larry Bohrer - said the first public meeting on the Feasibility Study was to pump the pond using the City's pipe and pump. At that meeting the area residents asked that more investigation be done before initiating pumping. The cost_.of the test wells at that time was not known. Bill Peterson- 2778 Legion - said at the feasibility meeting everyone agreed that further testing was necessary and that they all agreed to share in an assessment. Mayor Eder - said that the project commenced under the petition, so the limit of the assessment.is tQ the limit of the petitioners. Bill Peterson- said residents agreed at that time that more testing was necessary to determine exactly what would be necessary to alleviate the problem. The residents refused to agree to anythin3further until additional testing was done; and agreed to share in these costs. Administrator Whittaker - said the problem is that legally the City cannot, under State Statute, assess anyone who did not sign the petition unless an improvement is constructed. The other residents, who said they would share the costsf would have been assessed if an:'dmprovement had been ordered. LEGION POND HEARING, MARCH 10, 1981 -2- Whittaker - Only if they had signed the petition or agreed in writing to pay the costs, could these non -petitioners be assessed. Bill Peterson- Asked about the petitioners who were released from the original petition. Mayor Eder - said these petitioners were released prior to the City officially daciding=to'commence work:: Russ Cook 2783 Legion - Did not feel any problem was resolved. Dan Collyard - Presented a letter from his attorney to be made a part of this record. Bill Peterson- Asked if there was a petition to sink the test wells. Larry Whittaker- No separate petition was filed for the test wells. Bill Peterson- said the'second petition only asked the City to do the legal paperwork to enable the petitioners to qualify for low interest money. Larry Whittaker- said the original petition requested a solution to the flooding problem on Legion Pond; but that the people on both petitions were assessed. Larry Bohrer.- said there was a petition requesting a City .project to fill the lots, but this was withdrawn. Mrs. Peterson- asked if any of the costs for the withdrawn petition were being assessed to those who did not sign. She said the Administrator told her that the petitioners were being partially assessed for the initiation of the petition -that -was withdrawn. "'Three residents signed this petition, but it appears everyone is being assessed the same. Larry Whittaker. -_said he did not recall making that statement. Larry Bohrer - said that this statement is true. Mrs. Peterson- does not feel there should be any costs for the second petition. She referred to the October 22 minutes that stated $500 to $1,000 had been expended on the second petition, but the Council felt no costs should be assessed to the petitioners because of them removing the fill from the landfill. Larry Whittaker- said credit was given for the fill, and that a reasonable amount has been determined to be assessed, based on Council directives. Al Henning 2921 Legion - said he notified the City that he did not intend to pay for any testing costs. He requested his letter to this effect be entered into the record. Larry Whittaker- said the City received several letters stating a similar position; but it was the Council's position that it would only release those petitioners who asked to withdraw the night the petition was presented. After initiating work and expending money on the project the Council'agremd-petit%oners:cou_ld- not �be released from the petition. Al Henning - said he was unaware he wanted to withdraw from the petition until he received a letter from the City about the test wells. At that time�he sent the letter back stating he would not pay any costs or, assessments for testing. Russ Cook - Asked who authorized the test wells. Larry Bohrer - said the Council did but he secured the quotes. Al Henning - asked about easement costs Larry Whittaker - said an easement was received from Dr. Lundhold to place a test well on his property. LEGION POND ASSESSMENT HEARING -3- Dan Collyard - asked if the City will receive any benefit from the wells. Larry Whittaker- said hydrolic information will be of benefit to to residents on the pond. Dan Collyard - disputed figures and benefits as previously stated by the City and the City Engineer. Larry Bohrer said all previous data, studies and reports will be available if residents want to review them. Al Kupferschmidt - asked what.would the City have done without a petition. L. Whittaker - said the Council refused to get involved until there was a petition Al Henning - asked how petitions in other areas of the City were handled. Mayor Eder - said all peitions for projects and improvements are handled in the same manner. Dan Collyard - questioned the cost estimates for the test wells. He feels the estimates were much lower than what were assessed. L. Whittaker - said the estimates ranged from $2,150 to $3,250 for testing alone. Engineering expense was additional. Dan Collyard - said the City did not make the residents aware that there would be additional engineer expenses. L. Whittaker - refuted this remark and said it was fully explained during previous meetings. Mayor Eder closed the hearing at 9:05 p.m. The Council will consider action on the assessments at the March 17 City Council meeting. CITY OF LAKE ELMO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HEARING, MARCH 10, 1981 BEUTEL POND Mayor Eder called the.ihearing to order at 8 p.m. Engineer Bohrer explained the project and the assessment rnethod. The total assessment for the project was $11,275.21. The per unit cost is $39.69. The Engineer used the watershed area defined by Valley Branch to compute the assessment. After investigating the area he determined that a sub -watershed contributed to the pond. This reduced the number of assessed parcels and raised the assessed amount for the parcels within the sub -watershed. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: Engineer Bohrer explained that when this project was first discussed the Valley Branch information was the ',`nest available. The assessment notices were sent out from this information. Several property owners east of Jamaca Avenue notified the City that much of the water in their area was contained in land- locked depressions and that it never ran over -land to Beutei's Pond. At the property owners reguestg the area was investigated and it was determined that there is a sub -watershed within the previously defined area. This sub -watershed contributes directly to the pond. The Engineer coiifirmed the sub -watershed and determined that much of the 'land east of Jamaca does not contribute to Beutel Pond. He determined that the sub -watershed more accurately represents the area that contributes to the pond. ,Ie noted several properties that will be deleted or their assessment reduced from the roster. The City Attorney advised the Administrator that another hearing will need to be held on the new assessment roster. Mike Hillard 8961 37th - Questioned the use of proposed when referring to the project, since the project is complete. Mayor Eder explained that the assessment basis is proposed. A hearing is necessary before the assessment can be finalized. Steve Huppert 3733 Jamaca - Asked if the money is already spent. Yes. Wm. Hughes 9038 31st - Reviewed the map. He objects to his assessment stating water from his property does not flow towards Beutel Pond. lie said he has never had a water problem and has no benefit from the project. He said neither his property nor his neighbor, Steve Chlebeck contribute or benefit. Steve Chlebeck 9018 31st - asked how the contributing area was determined. Engineer Bohrer said he walked the property and considered low areas, swales, culverts, etc. He also used contour maps in determining the area. BEUTEL POND ASSESSMENT HEARING, MARCH 10, 1981 -2- Steve Chlebeck - stated that the water on his property does not get to the pond because of the design of County 6. He has never had a water problem and opposed any assessment, Mn/DOT Rep. - Asked if the City has an overall plan to discharge the area deleted to the NE to Beutel Pond. Also, does the City consider this a temporary project;,,, what is the life expectancy of the improvement; and will additional assessments be made against Mn/DOT to improve the outlet as the area develops. Engineer Bohrer said this is considered a temporary improvement because the outlet was not sized for ultimate development of the watershed. It was designed to relieve a flooding problem that exists with present conditions. The Council does not intend further development until the Main Stem Improvements are finalized. Ile outlined the two .watershed areas. Jerry Bartel 3415 Jamaca Ave.- opposed the assessment. He does not feel that anyone who lives on Jamaca Avenue should be involved. They have had no water problems and does not feel their water drains to Beutel Pond. Laverne Downs 3759 Jamaca - Asked for verification of the new..assessment area. Administrator Whittaker explained that the assessment was based not only on whether you live in the flooded area but if one contributes to the flooded area. If property run-off reaches Beutel Pond it contributes and. that property shares in the expense of solving the problem. Mervin Nippoldt 3501 Jamaca - Does not think his farm contributes. Engineer Bohrer said that a large portion of the Nippoldt farm is not included in the redefined area. About 13 acres, south of the driveway is included. John Taylor 8801 37th St. - lives on the west end of Jamaca Court. Stated he has had problems with water running across his property and forming a pond in his yard. He stated Mtieh'of 'this. rr.emains�on his property. Dave Dufrane 8968 36th - does not feel that property in his area affects Beutel Pond. The water runs in the ditches and has plenty of time to soak into the ground. He asked how many people are directly affected and have damage. Mayor Eder advised him to call the City Office for this information. ( Mike Hillard 8961 37th - indicated his area and stated the water would have to run up -hill in order to reach the pond. There are no ditches or culverts to transport the water. He said the water flows down Jamaca and across 212. BEUTEL POND ASSESSMENT HEARING, MARCH 10, 1981 -3- Engineer Bohrer indicated the two major culverts across 212. Mike Hillard - still questions how the water reaches this area. Engineer Bohrer said he looked at the area several times and did not see any standing water in the area Mr. Hillard indicated; but noted there are other pot holes in the area. Mayor Eder said that there will be another hearing to discuss the revised.roster. Notices will be mailed to those residences in the redefined area. Mottaz moved, seconded by Novak, to set a public hearing for the Beutel Pond Assessment for April 7, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Eder suggested residents call the City Office if they want to find out what their revised assessment is. Mayor Eder closed the hearing at 8:35 p.m. Mrs. Hertgard - sold Mr. Hughes his property. She noted that they never had water on their property even during flood times. She questioned any assessment to this parcel. Irvin Court Assessment Hearing, March 10, 1981 Mayor Eder opened the public hearing at 9:45 p.m. Engineer Bohrer explained the project and the assessment method. The total project cost was $9,231.24. $5400 will be assessed to the developer of Lake Jane Hills with the remaining $3,831 assessed to contributing and benefitting properties., This amounts to:$175.44 per acre. Audience Comments: Terry Edgerton 4280 Ivy Court - asked if anyone had walked the area to verify how the lots drain. He stated his neighbor was not included in the assessment area, yet, his property drains across the Edgerton property. Larry Bohrer - said he walked the area and had a survey crew determine where the physical breaks,:- in the terrain was. No absorption tests were done. Gary Schaubschlager 8567 Lake Jane Trail - asked why the developer of Lake Jane Hills was not assessed the total cost since there was no flooding problems before the development. He stated Irvin Court was built over a natural drainage area, therefore, he feels the developer should be responsible for the entire cost of the project. Larry Bohrer - indicated the overall drainage plan for the plat reduced the amount of water that,:previously flowed into Lake Jane. Less water leaves the development now than before development. Gary Schaubschlager - questioned his $189 assessment. Larry Bohrer - indicated he must have over an acre of assessed area. Don Conlin 8572 Lake Jane Trail - stated the problem was brought on by the developer therefore, the project should be paid for by the developer. He does not contribute or benefit by this project. Duncan McGregor 8645 Lake Jane Trail - noted that the plat indicated that a 3.2acre foot pond would be destroyed by Irvin Court. He reviewed the alternatives discussed by the Council at their July, 1979., meeting, and maintained that the alternative to enlarge the culvert and obtain an easement resulted in a savings to the developer and was unfair to residents in the area who were assessed. Don Conlin - ,submitted, thkt i•f;, -- : additi©na1. lots in -the area; had not been there would be no assessment or problem; but since this building has been done and tax revenue has increased the assessment should be borne by the general taxes..in the area, or the developer. Roger Wyland 8556 Lake Jane Trail - asked what the conditions of the easement were that enabled the Hedges property to be exempt from any assessment. Irvin Court Assessment -2- Ray Newman 8579 Lake Jane Trail - asked the possibilities of going back to the developer and asking him to pay the whole amount. Larry Bohrer -- said the City only has the ability to assess property not individuals. Gary Schaubschlager - suggested renegotiating the developers assessment on his remaining lots. Mayor Eder - said the developer would have to be willing to renegotiate in order to revise the assessments. Don Conlin - felt the Hedges property, exempt from assessment, has been enhanced by the project. They are receiving two forms of compensation. He does not agree with the assessment for the people in the area but if it is done than the assessment should be across the board for all property in the assessment area. Terry Edgerton - questioned the City Engineer approving this development and why the City would be willing to strike a deal with the developer on the project cost. Larry Bohrer - explained the necessity of the project. He indicated he was not the City Engineer at the time of the proposal. He stated a variance was granted to permit the Irvin Court cul-de-sac, also, Valley Branch approved the-flJing°,of the pdsyd' area. The primary concern, at the time, was water draining into Lake Jane and the Lake Jane Hills proposal decreased this amount. Duncan McGregor - feels it is up to the developer to assume the cost. There was no problem before the cul-de-sac was built. He does not feel residents should be responsible for helping -out the person who caused the problem. Don Conlin - asked the Council to review the assessments that are remaining in the area as a result of some of the trenching that was done. He indicated two assessments that residents took issue with, but were assessed for. Are there any more to be assessed that residents do not know about. Larry Whittaker - said there are no other proposed City projects to be assessed. Mayor Eder - indicated there will be a Valley Branch maintenance assessment on Project 1005. This will be levied against the taxes payable in 1982. This will be a small special assessment for maintenance of the pumping station on Lake Jane. Ray Newman - suggested the entire amount be assessed to the developers remaining'parcels,- Councillor Morgan - he was on the Council at the time this problem came up. He voted against it, feels the assessment against the residents is unfair and agrees with the comments submitted. He recommended the Council review the matter and consider:an.:41ternative. Don Conlin — asked if anything can be done about including the Hedges parcel in the assessment. Councillor Morgan - replied he does not think the City can alter the terms of the easement or the agreement. Mayor Eder closed the hearing at 10:15 p.m. This will be considered at the March 17 Council meeting.