Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-29-92 CCMLAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES APRIL 29, 1992 Mayor Johnson opened up the workshop at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: Mayor Johnson, Councilman Johnson, Mottaz, Williams, City Engineer Prew, City Attorney Filla and Administrator Kueffner. Absent: Councilman Hunt 1. AGENDA ADD: Discussion of the septic tank ordinance. M/S/P Dick Johnson/Williams - to approve the April 29, 1992 City Council agenda as amended. (Motion carried 4-0). DISCUSSION ON SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY: Tom Prow pointed out the following changes: On Page 2. equation on platted RED Council wanted "including farmed or undeveloped property." (Administrator estimated there were over 1,000 acres of Ag land in City) Mayor Johnson: If a propertyowner gets 33 1/3% of their income off of farmed property, he would like to see them get a break. Williams: He would agree to that, but would like to see what the impact would be on the overall collection. We could add "any land that is being farmed as part of a farming operation that generates 33 1/3% or more of the family income would be entitled to this break." --Does public right-of-way as listed under exemptions include City Hall. Filla: No. --Is there any reason why we would want to have the City Hall pay this fee. Filla: you generate runoff just like everybody else. This ordinance is better if everybody contributes. To the extent that they don't, you run the risk of having someone argue this ordinance is unreasonable or arbitrary and should not be enforced. You could list farmland as an exemption and put a purpose in the ordinance for doing this. Tie it into the comp plan if there is a statement in the plan about preserving the agricultural nature of the community. Then if you are challenged, you have a good reason. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP APRIL 29, 1992 2 Dick Johnson: Is it legal to use a designation on the FLUMap as opposed to an existing zoning district? I don't understand what is meant by platted RED and RAD? Prew: If there hasn't been a request for rezoning or platted, then it would still be farmed or undeveloped. Dick Johnson: I have a problem with the legal definition of RED and RAD platted RAD. Filla: Platted property is property that has gone thru subdivision process and been assigned a Lot and Block. Anticipate what kind of development that your going to see on that land and make some assumptions about what kind of runoff that development would generate. Legally you can use FLU designations. Williams: It doesn't make sense to say Section 1 which has almost nothing on it, but it is designated RED and charge that fee now assuming that someday it will become 2 1/2 acre lots. It would make more sense to charge the fee according to existing use. Filla: Even if you use the zoning classifications there is land that is undeveloped in a certain zoning classification. The intent of the ordinance is to assess a fee against developed property regardless of classification. He would enforce the ordinance for the entire city regardless the kind of development. Dick Johnson: suggested we should take out what is in parenthesis and put in a category of undeveloped land and a formula against it. Mayor: I think we should go with the rate they are taxed, and there tax is based on use. Administrator: I will have all this information from the County on DBase4 on May 13th. Mottaz: Say you have 23 acres which is considered one residential lot. Filla: If you have a 23 acre lot and one home, you are not generating as much runoff as a person who has 23 acres and x number of 1 1/2 acre lots. Williams: Classification No. 2 take out the farm that are undeveloped and make that a separate classification, the platted RAD then should be taken out and No. 1 should be residential. Filla: Suggested Current Land Use. The current use deems how they are contributing to runoff. Williams: Has a problem with not charging actively farmed land anything. I would go with the 20 and 10. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP APRIL 29, 1992 3 Prew: What I hear the Council say any house whether it sits on 1/4 acre lot or a 20 acre lot will pay the same. If it is classified agricultural, you have the house and buildings charged one and the extra acreage charged at the 10 or 20 cents per acre. Mottaz: It seems that we are going out of our way to protect the poor farmer, which is all well and good, I think we want to encourage agricultural. I think 20 cents an acre is ridiculous. Dick Johnson: What about a flat fee of $10 which covers the building and 20 cents an acre for everything over and above three acres for both categories, residential and farms. Mayor Johnson and Councilman Williams were willing to go along with this proposed formula. Fills. asked Prew to explain the correlation between the runoff number and the fees proposed. The runoff index (CN) is used in the revenue equation according to how many inches of runoff you get under a 2- year storm. Comparing the amount of runoff per acre. Mayor Johnson asked Tom Prew to work on the categories and ( where they would fit in order to group the properties for the ordinance. (Such as classification no. 1 would be residential/agricultural, classification no. 2 would be residential) Councilman Williams proposed that Tom Prew come back to the Council with a table which lists a number of classifications and the property class code that go into each of those classifications. At a previous meeting the Council set up a public hearing for May 12th. The Council postponed any further action on the Storm Water Utility until Tom Prew brings the requested table to the Council. Filla: We should include more language in the purpose. Definition of the current land use related to the property class code. Prew asked if they would like He proposed yearly because of asked if they could start the the fund. to assess quarterly or yearly. the small amount. The Council billing this year to build-up Councilman Williams indicated he would not be in favor of restricting the funds at this time to ditch cleaning, etc. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP APRIL 29, 1992 4 f Filla: Change paragraph 750.060 because it anticipates the first statement would go out on or before March 5th so the year of inception you may have to include a different time that would be for the second and subsequent years. You would probably prorate this fee for the first year. The Council will review the requested information from the City Engineer on Tuesday, May 5th, and then call a public hearing. OLD VILLAGE DRAINAGE DISCUSSION: Filla: We are talking about a storm sewer improvement district which we are creating because then you can levy ad valorem taxes instead of special assessment. This works well, but will not work on the agricultural land because they get a break on taxes. When you calculate what kind of money you expect to get back, you have to take that into consideration. Prew: They are valued at $1000 per acre. Filla: From a law standpoint it is impossible sometimes to show economic benefit on a storm sewer improvement project. If you use a storm sewer improvement district to finance this instead of special assessments, we don't have to prove it. We just notify the county of the cost and spread it across the tax rolls like an ad valorem tax over a number of years you chose to credit. The City has to still discuss how they are going to finance this project; sale of bonds, borrowed reserves, because you will be front ending the money on this project. The whole purpose of going with a storm sewer improvement district is to avoid the pitfalls of 429. Prew: MSA funds will pay 90 percent of the contract right away. 100% for the street. 100% for the storm sewer on the street and 25% of everything down the street. This will leave the City with $80,000. Filla: He will review a case in Shoreview that established assessing 100 percent even if you get MSA funds. If we can't use MSA funds and then assess everything in addition, then we don't want to create a storm sewer improvement district --we would want to use a 429. Williams: I was thinking about using MSA funds and assessing some by 429 and then use a taxing district to finance the rest. Mayor: I thought we would only be assessing for the street and not for storm sewer. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP APRIL 29, 1992 5 Filla suggested the city use MSA funds and special assess the street improvements and collect the storm sewer part by a tax improvement district. This would be less confusing to the people. Tom Prew: This does not include the watermain replacement. Mayor Johnson: we want to be able to say this improvement (water main replacement) because it is directly improving your property we are assessing you individually. Filla: If you are planning on assessing over 10 years the city may want to think about picking up part of the cost out of this surface water management fund because after one year you will have some money going in so you can start paying the tenth year costs. OLD VILLAGE DRAINFIELD DISCUSSION: Filla: The drainfield we would be purchasing is going to be large enough area to service the entire study area, but only develop enough to service the one that request to be hooked up. The City should think of the future and structure the rates and start collecting the money to repair the mains or whatever is needed to do the drainfield. Prew: Anything on the west side of Lake Elmo Avenue would be a future improvement. Once a property owner is hooked up to the community system, they then get charged $35 a quarter. If thy contribute more, as the Lake Elmo Inn, they will paying more in terms of quarterly use fees. The City may want to pay the assessment for the people until they hook up. Mayor: This would mean the community would have to pay for the up -front costs for 7 or 10 people that are in need on a new system. Some people are still paying their assessment for their 201 system. There are 31 sites, 3 of which belong to the city(park, fire dept., public works). According to Tom there are 10-15 that absolutely have to hook up. Williams: He would be willing to assess the cost of the collector now. How could we show benefit for the (5) new 201 systems? These do not have an alternate drainfield site. Could we assess them half the charge until they hook up. Prew: Under estimated assessments, if they have a 201 system put in the city and don't have room for an alternate drainfield. they will be charge half. If they have room for a second drainfield which they have to prove to us and have a new functioning septic system up to city code, the city will not assess them for the pipe. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP APRIL 29, 1992 , 6 Filla: The City ought to think of a policy on connection charge equal to a lump sum in order to connect to the system. If there is a significant senior citizen population, then they could apply for a deferral. They have to be 65 or older, homestead property, and there has to be an economic hardship. Williams: The City should loan people money who cannot afford to upgrade their septic system and have them pay it back with interest over a number of years. Would it work if we say that every system in an area is a health hazard, we now give the property owners the option of doing it themselves right away or putting it on assessments. Prew: In order for the City to give the people credit who have upgraded their system, the City could defer the assessment on the pipe until they connect. Filla: Can they use the system within a reasonable time? If they cannot use the system in fifteen years, then you are starting to get to a point they have no benefit. Instead of talking about special assessments, you adopt some legislation that states the connection charge is equal to $150 plus whatever the assessment would have been fifteen years ago had they connected. Prew: Maybe you could get the assessment in a lump sum $1750 as a connection charge. The City Administrator has sent a letter recapping the feasibility report and a public hearing notice for May 5th to all affected property owners. The City Engineer will summarize what the City will end up paying. Prew: If someone with a 3-bedroom house in the Old Village hooks up, the hook up charge would be $4,400. Septic tanks cost approx. $600 or $800 and to dig it in would cost $1500. MUSA EXTENSION: The City Administrator explained the City received the official letter from the Met Council turning our application down and suggested the City proceed with submitting another application for the 120 acres. Preliminary figures on the distribution for SAC units has been figured out between herself and the city engineer. Mayor Johnson stated that the developer requests a letter stating our absolute commitment to put in the necessary services, if they commit after this due diligence period. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP APRIL 29, 1992 7 The City Attorney advised the city could not do this in a form of a letter of intent. There would have to be some form of a contract that binds the city and future councils. Councilman Williams indicated he did not go along with directing the City Attorney to talk with that attorney without there being an escrow fund set up by the propertyowner. If they aren't willing to put up a couple thousand dollars, then they are not very serious. Mayor Johnson felt the city would have to spend a couple of dollars for this. The question is "Is it worth it --will it pay off in the long run?" The Washington County assessor worked up a tax rate project based on a 25 million and 50 million project. Mayor Johnson understands this is a 3 story building, 120,000 sq.ft. per floor. Under 25 million if we kept our existing tax rate, this project would provide to the city $200,000 a year. Councilman Williams stated he would not agree to have this city spend any more money on this project unless the propertyowners come up with some money. If any of the consultants are going to be directed to do anything, it must be in a form of a vote by the full council. M/S/F Mottaz/Mayor Johnson - to direct the City Attorney to contact this attorney and to limit his contact with this attorney to 3 hours. (Motion failed: Williams, Dick Johnson). Councilman Johnson stated we have shown good faith to this developer in the amount of $20,000 and tried to get the Metropolitan Council to accept our application. I have seen nothing in writing. I am not going any farther in this, until a good faith effort is shown from the other side. Mayor Johnson said he would do the dealing with their attorney, find out from them what they want and what would work for them and bring it back to the Council. Discussion of the septic tank ordinance: Councilman Williams indicated he would be willing to go along with the revision of the ordinance to allow the tank covers to be within 4" of the surface rather than at the surface. This would take care of a lot of the objections. Mayor Johnson would like to have further discussion on this. He has heard people say they simply aren't going to do it anyway. There is only one way that we will make sure that the pumper in fact pumps through that the manhole cover and that is if it is up -to -grade. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP APRIL 29, 1992 8 Councilman Johnson would like to see the ordinance changed to affect the systems that were put in from now on. He asked why the number of 4 inches. Councilman Williams explained that 4 inches allows a decent sod to be established above it. Councilman Mottaz disagreed and felt you cannot grow grass on 4 inches of dirt. He felt the city has a good ordinance and we should stick with it. The Council adjourned the workshop. AMENDED AGENDA FOR THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29,1992 7:00 p.m. MEETING CONVENES 1. AGENDA 2. Surface Water Management Utility and Old Village Drainfield 3. MUSA EXTENSION 4. ADJOURN LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29,1992 7:00 p.m. MEETING CONVENES 1. AGENDA 2. Surface Water Management Utility and Old Village Drainfield 3. ADJOURN