HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-11-83 CCMSPTOI.AL LAKE ELMO COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 11, 1983
Mayor Feder opened the Special Emergency Meeting on Lake Jane Flooding at 6:10 p.m.
Allen Dornfeld, President, Valley Branch. Watershed District, introduced Watershed
Bagineer, Nels Nelson, who explained the Watershed's request to sandbag the weir
on Olson Lake to prevent flooding on Lake Jane. Looking for alternatives,
--Noll Nelson - this request is in response to numerous calls about the flooding
situation on Lake Jane, Presently is a, threat situation, rather than a flooding
situation. Outlined. the varying lake levels. Two suggestions being considered:
1. Temporary - based on the idea that the weir and the pipe on Lake
Olson have a greater capacity to permit inflow into Lake Jane than
the pump has capability to pump cut, a temporary sandbagging of the
weir will permit maintenance of the preseni; levels on Olson avid
Demontreville while permitting the pump to catch up with the inflow.
The present electric pump can only take cane of 2cfs, Two homes on
Lake Jane are threatened, with .flooding. If Olson or Demontreville
begin to rise the sandbags will be removed - if Olson or Demontreville
fall, more sandbags can be added until Jane is back to a safe level
that the pump can handle. Anticipate this process would have to be
maintained for a. month before Jane is Stout of the woods".
2.. Long Range Plan - Reduce eon.trol level on weir and/or place a small hole
in weir so that water can flow out earlier in the year. This would add
water inflow earlier so that the pump could .start pumping earlier,
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
--Mayor Eder - need to have an awareness that the weir was put in at an elevation
that was the settlement of a law suit. Suit involved residents on both sides
of the weir,
---Yraser - asked Nelson for a non -technical explainationg calling for this emergency
action,
--Nets Nelson.- trying to respond to calls and letters received from residents on
Lake Jane, Presently there is enough, water on Lake Demontreville to cause
flooding on Lake Jane,
—Fraser - asked about upstream impact of this proposal..
--Nelson - proposal is to hold the level of Demontreville where it is. Heavy rain
would cause minimal problems upstream, No specifics for upstream are available.
—Morgan - what plans does VBWD have to get a bigger pump on Jane.
--Nelson - currently getting estimates for a larger capacity pump - this will be
discussed at the Districts May 12 meeting. Estimates to resat a larger capacity
pump are running from $6,000 to $22,000 for 1 to 6 month rental. Also looking
into purchasing larger electric pump - estimates running in excess of $259000.
Would have to use a diesel now since there is not adequate electric service for
a larger capacity electric pump at the present pump site, Can run 2cfs now and
can go up to i� oft, but not sure for how long the plastic pipe can handle 2cfs.
Considering .replacing the plastic pipe with steel piping up the hill, then continue
with plastic.
..-Eder - how long will Demontreville and Olson stay above the weir?
--Nelson - under this proposal, one month. Water level has been at weir level for
2-3 weeks. Identified the two homes threatened with flooding - Evanoff &
--Eder - know the possibility of damage on one side but not on the other as far
as vegetation damage. Lawsuit concerned vegetative damage. 199is being the case
would oppose sandbagging and consider only pumping using a larger capacity
diesel pump.
--Nelson - Demontreville has .fallen I", but Jane is still coming up.
--Scotty Lya11, T3irchbard Tr, - should consider impact on threatened homes on
windy days where waves would these homes,
--Mrs. Evanoff, Jane Rd. N, - presently waves hit bay window of their home
on windy days.
SPECIAL LASE ELMO COUNCIL MEETING, MAY 119 1983 -2-
LAKE J OE FLOODING- Continued -
--Eder - District's contingency plan oal]#+for augmenting a deisel pump for
emergency situations - this should be -put into effect rather then implementing
this suggestion,
--Nelson - resident(s) have expressed strong feelings about the diesel pump (against
the noise)
--Morgan - should do both measures - may damage vegetation, but this is not a threatening
situation, Get pump in post-haste to level off Jane,
--Gunnar Guidlow - asked about possible storage on upstream latices such as Long or Silver.
Also, questioned the holding capacity of City Park Pond.
--Nelson - City Park Pond is well below capacity. Chuck Taylor cited present water
level and past levels and capacity using the deisel pump.
--Nelson - restricting outlet from Long Lake would have little effect,
--Taylor - thistime of ,year run-off from Grant Township is significant and increases
with every rain. Should check impact from this area.
--Ken Sovereign, Olson Lake Tr. N, - Valley Branch has chosen pumping as the
means of fretting the water out of Jane - if this means using a larger pump then
that what they should do. Disagrees with Engineer Nelson's statement that Olson
and. Jane will not flood witl a 6!1�rai.n - f4e1 this was settled as a settlement
to a, Lawsuit - appears that if any flooding results from slowing down the natural
flow of the water or the judicial flow, which this is, of the water you, have a
lawsuit pending. If Valley Branch can keep the level, there is no rain and no
flooding nothing will happen. If there is rain and flooding and the pump cannot
handle it now, then it cannot handle later. Should check two things-
1. Citys liability if slow drnm the weir
2. VBWD' liability in not installing a. pump large enough to handle capacity.
--Nels Nelsen - responded to question from Scotty Lyall concerning drainage from
Castle Green. This situation is a concern., but not solely responsible for the
flooding on Jane. Also, in response to Mr, Evanoff's question, the District
has not made a decision on starting the pump earlier.
--Bder - District needs City approval to place sandbags on the weir because the
City is the owner of the weir and any alteration of the weir requires City
permission as well as DNR approval - City has to decide whether to allow this
action by VBWD or not. The weir, its construction and elevation level was
a settlement of a lawsuit, with township funds invested in the weir.
--Ray Marshall, City Attorney - not familiar with this suit. Would like to review
file before making determination as to the settlement stipulations.
MVS/ Morgan/Dunn that the City of Lake Elmo strongly urge the Valley Branch
Watershed District to install a larger diesel pump (4 cis), on Lake Jane with
the capacity to meet the inflow of water into Lake Jane; and, in the interim,
until the pump can catch up with the inflow and control the flooding, that the
present level of Lakes Olson and Demontreville be maintained by sandbagging
the Olson Lake Weir. The level of maintenance shall be the level determined
on May 11, 1983, by VBWD. Maximum maintenance time not to exceed two weeks,
at this level. The levels on Lakes Olson and Demontreville cannot rise or the
sandbages will have to be removed immediately.
LAKE ELMO SPECIAL COUNCIL MOETING, MAY 119 1983
-3-
LAKE JANE FLOODING:
DISCUSSION:
--Mazzara - either in this motion or a separate motion would like to see
recommendation to slow inflow from Long Lake and Grant Township. Asked how long
it will take to implement this action.
--Nels Nelson - If BUR permit is secured by Friday, work could start early next
weeko
--Filer - asked why VB was not prepared for emergency situation this year since
they were ready for similar situation last year,
--Allen Dornfold - different situation this year- Excessive bank storage created
a rapid increase of inflow - discussed situation two weeks ago - plan to take
different action in the future.
--Eder - concerned about sandbagging the weir, Strongly encourage pumping. If
sandbagging has to be, would delay placement of the bags until the pump is in
place and operating,
--Fraser - supports installation of the pump. This is not something the City
controls. Motion provides,the only effective thing the City can do is approve
the sandbagging request, Would prefer to let Valley Branch make the decision
and hold off sandbagging until the City has an opportunity to pot information
on the legal issues.
--Morgan -- Motion is only encouraging Valley Branch to go ahead and do something.
--Allen Doxnfeld - not only need City permission but Corp of Engineers, Soil and
Water Conservation District and the DNR. Thanked the Council for getting the
"ball rolling", Also, stated that ponding is not the only solution, still
need some type of outletting sytem .for flood control.
Motion. carried 3-2. Eder and Fraser opposed.
M/S/P Morgan/Mazzara to recomnxendr encourage and insist that Valley Branch Watershed
District look into storing more water on Silver Lake and in. Grant Township to
slow down run-off into Lake Demontreville, Olson and ultimately Jane. Carried 5-0.
--Allen Dornfold - when talking about another area, talking about a project, Cannot
do anything without a project and the only way this is accomplished is through
the petitioning process.
ADJOURW NT: Mayor Elder adjourned the Special Emergency Meeting at 7:05.p.m.
LAKE ELMO COUNCIL HEARING ON PROPOSED SEAL COAT PROGRAM, MAY 11, 1983
Mayor Eder opened the hearing at 7:17 p.m.
Councillors present: Morgan, Fraser, Dunn and Mazzara
Mayor Eder read the Hearing Notice that was mailed to all affected property
owners, and, published in .the Washinqton County Review. He outlined
the agenda format, then introduced City Engineer Larry Bohrer, who
presented the proposed sealcoat program.
PROGRAM_
Buhrer explained the necessity of sealcoating and the City's present
sealcoat program, He noted that budgeted monies have not been able
to keep up with program needs. Adequate monev is not available to
do new streets within the City, and the levy limit cannot be raised
to cover the costs. On the instruction of -the Council, the Enaineer
developed a Feasibility Study and Financina Methods for a 6-year
Sea_lcoat Program. Maps of streets in the program and the years they
are planned for sealcoatina were reviewed. The proposed program was
developed on the present condition of the streets and the time lapsed
since they were last sealcoated. He informed the audience that the
public hearing is to receive public input on the proposed program.
QUESTIONS ON PROGRAM
_
--Ji f obin4180 Trvin Circle N.
Q. Has the condition -of all the steets been evaluated to determine
whether or not sealcoatina will actually increase the life of
the streets.
A. Streets have been looked at in a General way- some streets are
beyond sealcoatina to rejuveniate the surface and need to be over-
layed. Explained overlay process - cost is 10 times that of. seal-
coatina. By sealcoatina, hope to extend the life of a street and
prevent premature overlay to be required.
Q. By sealcoating every 5-6 years, will street deterioration be
lessened that much to justify the sealcoatina costs to property
owners. Will the streets last 25 years by just sealing the cracks.
Maybe should leave the streets go and just overlay every 25 years.
A. If no sealcoatina is done, overlay will have to -be done more often,
at a much greater expense.
--Tom Junqman. 8646 42nd St. N.
Q. When was the last time any streets in the City were sealcoated:
A. There was a $15,000 program in 1981 and a smaller program in 1982.
Sealcoating has been done in the City since 1976.
Q. Has a traffic survey been done - streets with more traffic would
need sealcoating more.
A. Weather and traffic have an effect on streets - program is based
on need.
Q. Do not believe streets only 5-years old need sealcoating.
A. This proposed program is based on programs used by similar Cities.
--Tom Armstrong, 8291 15th St. N.
Q. Asked if this will be a 3-5-or 6 year program.
A. 6-year is an -estimated time frame - streets would be sealcoated in
5 to 8 year interims. 5-year program is indicated because sealcoating
is proposed for this year. After this year, subsequent years will
be done on need which will be evaluated and monitored.
If streets are initially constructed adequately they will last longer
and sealcoating will extend the life.
LAKE ELMO COUNCIL HEARING ON SEALCOATING, MAY 11, 1983 -2-
--Loren Barber, 499.5 J'amaca Ave. N.
Q. Would like a cost comparison on doing vs not doing and the effect
( on the streets for each example. (will be discussed later in meeting)
--Steve Dacio, 5111 Hilltop Ave. N.
Q. Asked about a road construction -standard. What type of standard
was in effect when Demontreville Highlands was developed in 1978.
A• in 1978, developer would have proposed a street standard which was
reviewed and aT�nroved by the'City Engineer, at that time. Not aware
of any written City requirements for street standards at that time.
Current street standard was 'adopted in 1980. Many township roads
were incorporated into the City street system when Lake Elmo and
East Oakdale merged. These streets had varying degrees of pavement,
and construction. Sealcoating helps prevent premature reconstruction.
Streets where sealcoating would not help were not included in the
program.
Q. City responsibility to develop streets so seealcoatina program would
not be necessary.
--Resident
Q. Why is it_necess_ary to sealcoat streets that are used only by
the residents along that street - rather than just the streets
that have continuous traffic. All construction in her development
is complete - no more construction vehicles.
A. Heavy traffic is not the only cause of street deterioration. Every
street has a useful life - deterioration begins upon construction
completion. Weather, earth movement, trash pick-up vehicles,
septic pumpers, delivery vehicles, landscape vehicles, etc. all
contribute to the deterioration of a street. Explained the seal -
coat process. City will 'bake care of maintenance by filling
cracks before sealcoating is done.
G. Simon, 5885 Highlands Tr. N.
Q.. Cracks larges cause of pavement breakup. Believe more benefit
in increased crack filling maintenance.
A. Labor intensive work.and an important part of the process. Intent
is to try and keep up with the drack::_sealing as interim maintenance
preservation
Ben Friedrich, 11269 31st St. N.
Q. Why is 34th Street to be sealcoated - has been done in the past -
waste of money to sealcoat.
A. Reason this was done in .the past was to respond to complaints about
dust. Agrees this street needs a bituminus surface.
Q. Asked why maintenance ie, seaicoating, plowing, stopped at the
property line and did not into the driveway area that is
dedicated r-o-w the length of the property.
A. Council will have to address - no sure why this was done the way
it was.
FINANCING
Bo r er expiained the two proposed methods - unit method and front
foot method with maximum and minimum rates. Figures for assessment
alternatives were outlined in the Engineer's letter of May 6, 1983.
Corner lots - for the purpose of the assessment schedulelfront footage
on both sides of a corner lot were figured for assessment.
LAKE ELMO COUNCIL HEARING ON SEALCOATING, MAY 11, 1983 -3-
FINANCING - Continued
QUESTIONS
James Tobin, ,A180• Irvin Ct. N.
Q. Mentioned earlier that monies had been bubgeted in the past -
why can't this continue - more streets, but more people living
in the City and more money coming in.
A. Many developments are not full, but, all the street improvements
are in and are being used - many are through streets. Reitterated
causes of deterioration.
Filling cracks that just keep coming back defeats the purpose.
A City has to weigh the cost of not filling cracks and not sealcoating
against the consequences of doing nothing to the streets. Believe
have to have a sealcoat/maintenance program for street lo4gevity.
Filling and sealcoating reduces the amount of water that gets
under the pavement and causes damage. Re crack filling - new
materials continually being developed,
Ben Friedrich, 11269 31st St.
Q. When will an assessment determination be made?
A. At assessment hearing later in the summer. Assessment hearing
on the 1983 Program will be held this summer with the 1984
Program hearing held next year, etc.
Tom Armstrong, 8291 15th St, N.
Q. Residents in other than the 1983 Program likely will not be at
this years hearing. Important that policy adopted at the 1983
hearing is adhered to for succeeding years. City has to adopt
an uniform assessment policy. Recommended adopting the Unit
Method, Minimum Rate which provides for 20% of the cost to be
assessed to affected property owners with an 80% ad valorem tax
tgeneral property tax). Because one lives on a street should not
beF).required to support the street(sI when all citizens use the
street(s). Real question is how to handle this program in a way
that is fair to all citizens, not just those living on a City
street. I'
A. Method proposed would cost 2 mills total or a 2% property tax
increaze per individual. The ad valorum 'tax is also deductible,
Charles Graves, 5227 Jerome Ct, N.
Q. Suggested a combination unit and front foot method. Does not
feel it is fair that individuals with small front foot lots
should have to pay a share for. individuals with larger front
"rootage. Use ad valorum tax to seperate costs out.
Bruce Wylie, 409-1 Irvin Circle N.
Q, Appears decision is already made - is it definite this is going
to be done? How were costs determined? Who else has this program?
A. Council has to decide whether to adopt a sealcoat program or not.
Have%�to decide by Friday whether or not the City wants to participate
in the County''s Seaicoat Program - savings to the City by joining
the County program, Mahtomedi adopted a program like one suggested
by Tom Armstrong, Cost estimates are based on previous bids for
similar work in surrounding communities. estimate is based on
the City contracting the work out - savings in joining County
program. Bohrer added that the City's Maintenance Budget cannot
keep up with the deterioration of the streets.
Ben Friedrich, 11269 31st St.
0, Difficult to decide pro or con without knowing the amount,:of the
assessment. Would favor unit assessment method over front foot,
but do not want to be bleed to death,
LAKE ELMO PUBLIC HEARING ON SEALCOATING, MAY 11, 1983 -4-
FINANCE QUESTIONS Continued
Mary Ann Kl.oetzke, 2415 L&Son Ave, N.
Q, Asked how much of individual property taxes go into street
maintenance budget, whatdoes it go for - seen street sweeper
once in five years - had. poor snow removal this year.
A. About 20o goes into the maintenance budget. Bohrer outlined
what street maintenance entails.
Q. Opposes a Street Sealcoatina Program - not necessary in this area.
John Leslie, 11546 20th St,
Q. Legal question - homeowners paid entire cost of paving 20th St.
understood there would be no additional assessment costs. Asked
the legality of this agreement.
A. Mayor Eder indicated that 3M Club paid a predetermined amount for
this street with the remainder assessed on a front foot basis.
Pete Durand, 11332 20th St.
Q. A lot of traffic going to Tartan Park. Believes they should pay
a larger share of reconstruction or maintenance costs - just
finished paving for the original paving of the road. There were
no problems before 3M increased the traffic.
Tom Armstrong
Reitterated the advantages and fairness of his proposal..
Carol Kuettner, aamaca Ct. N.
Agrees with Armstrong's suggestion especially the ad valorum tax.
City has a responsibility to maintain its streets.
Charles Graves, 5227 Jerome Ct. N.
Q. Peopl&,,with greater amcunt of frontage have greater potential use
and value of their property. Again stressed have to have some
form of assessment based on front footage and unit.
Tom Armstrong
Larger parcels will still pay a larger amount, but this can still
be added to taxes through ad valorum tax.
Ben Friedrich
Re Corner lots - these are not an advantage - this needs to be
addressed. This type of lot doe s not inhance the property value.
Resident
Q. Questioned area in Hidden Bay where 2-3 homes are serviced off
a driveway - great inequity if they do not have to pay for
improvement to the roadway up to this drive. Area was not
noted on any of the proposed maps.
A. This was an oversight and will be included and assessed accordingly
if the program is approved.
Loren Barber
Q. Has a cost analysis been.done.
A. No. Bohrer explained how evaluation was arrived at.
Engineer Bohrer gave his credentials. He went on to explain Mn/DOT's
position on up -keep of streets and highways.
Mayor Eder submitted letterr• from C. W. Taylor, John Hannar
Howard Sprinqborn, and Gordon,Simon, Arlyn Christ, Ron Kuehn and
Kay Chevrier into the record. He then closed the public hearing at
8:40 p.m.
M/S/P Fraser/Mazzara to continue the meeting for Council discussion.
Carried 5-0.
LAKE ELMO PUBLIC HEARING ON SEALCOAT PROGRAM
-5-
COUNCIL'D'ISCU'SS'I'ON
Councillor Morgan -
If project is ordered and the majority of the assessment is put
on the ad valorem tax, it is no different than what is being done
now - cost is coming out of the General Fund.
Mayor Eder
Prevent by law from raising the levy because we are up in the 8%
levy increase. This is a way around it.
Councillor Fraser -
Think the approach of putting as much as possible into the ad
valorem tax is the fairest approach and the most fiscally sound
approach particularly because it can be an income tax deduction.
Fairest because of how the streets are used. Also think it is
necessary to implement this program. Streets need it and the way
it has been laid out is.it..an unnecessary, superfluous program.
This is no more than sound management of the things that we own.
Also noted that 1100 notices were mailed to all affected property
owners and less than 50 people attended the public hearing. Know
that a small percentage, under 4%, of the peopole who received
notice attended. Heard a number of residents who attended indicate
they do not want the program; also, have a believe that the
large majority of the people who chose not to attend, chose not
to attend because they do not really want to object - they may
not like it, but see it as a reasonable approach.
Mayor Eder - regarding the question of cost return - while we do not
have specific figures have other standards to parallel. Looking
at the 2-3 streets that are presently beyond repair, it is
very evident that non -maintenance can be a problem. Related that
the street in front of his home has been sealcoated once since 1971,
when it was constructed, obVionsl.y needs to be sealed to slow down and
prevent noticiable signs'of deterioration. If the unit/ad valorem
method is approved, consideration will have to be given to Lanes
Demontreville Country Club, Tartan Park, corner lots.
Councillor Mazzara - do we want this and where are we going to lean as
far as taxes are concerned?
Councillor Morgan - agree with Councillor Fraser - should be on a per
parcel basis with the maximum put into the ad valorem tax.
Councillor Dunn - agrees with Councillor Fraser, also. Advised the
residents who oppose a seal coat program to look at the streets
that are beyond sealcoating to see what their street could look
like in 5-6 years. Thinks the program is good - should go with
the unit/ad valorem method
Councillor Morgan - for the Assessment Hearing the Engineer should be
prepared to be very specific on the life extension provided by
sealcoating. Also specifices on parcel costs.
M/S/ Dunn/Fraser to adopt R-83-33, a Resolution approving the 1983
Seal Coat Program, as outlined by the Engineer.
Discussion -
Mayor Eder - Noted that there is a question about future of 34th Street
as to whether it should be sealcoated or reconstructed.
Motion carried 5-0.
Engineer will prepare an assessment role based on a Unit Method,
assessing 20$ to affected parcels with the 80% an ad valorem tax.
M/S/P Morgan/Dunn to adjourn at 9:50 p.m.
RESOLUTIONS: 83-33 - 1983 Sealcoa.ting Program
We, the undersigned, object to the proposed method of raising
funds for the sealcoating of city streets. We object to an
assessment based on a front foot of street, as this method
would tax the most those who benefit the least and tax the
least those who benefit most.
Theoretical Example:
A corner lot owner would benefit the least as he
lives at the beginning of the street and thus travels
the shortest distance on the street, yet he would
be taxed the most as he has streets on two sides. The
cul-de-sac owner benefits the most as he must travel
the full length of the street, yet would be taxed the
least as his lot only has a small amount of road
frontage.
What we propose is a very simple equal assessment per lot
in the development or along the street. We further feel
that lots located in the same area yet on a county road
should not be exempt from pa in their share of the c mmunity
maintenance program. I�� � ,�,.�-� a--- ate, ec.�v�
s Xir �l� a iiu�j►/Gu,t�. �� �c u 7,tr► '&'k �-} in, �c.� . p t�8 0 /d p
124 � �'i
S/_,o%93
aj
V�'Oty _5 _f57
a
-A, V
-zoo!
e4�1
V_ se1w.-
'elf
157
I
el,
r5
%-vim,-,ti,.�/. -v L?
1���-CSC
�Lz� �'�%
d6n/Lll
an,
C�.1,?
0
R-83-33
RESOLUTION
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT KNOWN AS THE 1983
SEALCOATING PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO AND
DIRECTING THE CITY }ENGINEER TO PREPARE PLANS FOR THAT
IMPROVEMENT.
WIIEREAS, a Resolution of the City Council adopted April
19, 1983, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed
improvement known as the 1983 Sealcoating Program; and
WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through
two weekly publications of the required notice was given
together with mailed notice to all affected property owners
of the hearing; and the hearing was held thereon on the
llth day of May, 1983, at which all persons desiring to be
heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Lake Elmo as follows: .
1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed
by the City Council in their. Resolution of April
19, 1983, known as R-83-29.
2. Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates, Incorporated
are hereby designated as the Engineers for this
improvement.. They shall prepare plans and specifica-
tions for the making of such improvement.
3. `.I'he seal.coating work shall be carried out by the Washington
County contractor, after bidding, with the County
Sealcoating Program.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of. Lake Elmo this
llth day of May, 1983.
ATTEST:
Laurence E. Whittaker, City
Administrator
Mdyna L. Eder., Mayor