Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1963/12/12PROCEEDINGS OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL VILLAGE OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Public Meeting of the Village Council of the Village of Mounds View, Minnesota was held at the Edgewood Junior High School in the Village of Mounds View on December 12, 1963 at 8 :10 P.M. for the purpose of holding a Public Hearing on the proposed construction of the sanitary sewer improvement system consisting of the following: 1. Surface drainage. 2. Building sanitary sewer system. 3. Rebuilding and resurfacing the streets. 4. Maintenance building and equipment to service system. The meeting was called to order by Donald Hodges, the Village Mayor, who introduced the following persons: Richard Meyers, Village Attorney, John Sullivan, Village Trustee, Paul Boog, Adm. Clerk, Lloyd Blanchard, Village Clerk, James Olson, Fiscal Agent, Les Rnutsen, Engineer, Comstock Davis The program was turned over to Mr. Meyers who read the Notice of Hearing on Proposed Sanitary Sewer and Street Resurfacing Improvement in its entirety which read in pert: "proposed construction of a sanitary sewer improvement consisting of sanitary sewer laterals and service connections to furnish sewer service to the properties described below as the properties proposed to be assessed. The improvement also includes a general street resurfacing program. The estimated cost of the above improvement is $1,267,580. The area proposed to be assessed for said improvement will include all properties lying within an area bounded by a line running as follows: Beginning at the intersection of County Road H extended and Jackson Street extended and proceeding on County Road H and County Road H extended to Fairchild Avenue; on Fairchild Avenue from County Road H to County Road H -2; on County Road 11-2 from Fairchild Avenue to Long Lake Road on Long Lake Road from County Road H-2 to Arden Avenue; on Arden Avenue and Arden Avenue ex- tended from Long Lake Road to Trunk Highway No. 8 (east corporate limits); on Trunk Highway 8 from Arden Avenue extended to Highland Avenue; on Highland Avenue from Trunk Highway 8 to Jackson Street; and on Jackson Street from Hignland Avenue to County Road H ex.. tended." Notice of the hearing was published on two dates: November 28 and December 3, 1963. 1,200 notices were mailed to all addresses available, which included notices based on water billings. In some cases those who are buying under contract for deed may not receive notices as these are sent to the vendor. However, no one at the meeting appeared stating they had not received a notice. A technical review of the progress of the sewer program from its in. ception to the present time was given by Mr. Meyers. He stated that the septic tank problem first arose in September, 1958, at which time it was brought to the Council's attention. The Village was incorporated the latter part of 1958 and they got down to the problems of the sewer. There were petitions of 200 signatures requesting sewer service. Methods were discussed at that time and there was no outlet for sewage available. In February of 1959 a delegation appeared before the Council requesting consideration of either a sanitary sewer system or water system and, in that same month, the Council requested the Village Engineer to make a preliminary study for the Village. The District released Brooklyn Park from the confines of the District. On May 4, 1959 the Council authorized the Village Engineer to prepare a preliminary report giving facts and figures as a basis to go on. However, there was no outlet for sewage at that time. On July 28, 1959 Dr. Houle gave a report on the need for sanitary sewer and water in the Village and stated that there was a definite contamination problem. He warned that both systems should be looked into. Decision was made in favor of proceeding with the water installation. The Fall of 1959 was the beginning of the N.S.S.S.D. and five or six villages met to form a district for the purpose of finding an outlet for sewage disposal. There followed in 1959 discussions with Arden Hills -2- to try to hook up through the 'win City Arsenal, but that did not materialize and we were ultimately so advised by letter from them in May of 1962. In Feb. of 1960 our Village Engineer had been negotiating with Minneapolis through the Arsenal system and there was no progress at that time with the City of Minneapolis. We tried to secure funds and a loan was applied for to Chicago but turned down. In July of 1960 the Engineering Committee of the N.S.S.S.D. submitted a plan for drainage- -five different methods were actually proposed, and we accepted the first one -that of Minneapolis sewer collection. Mr. Meyers pointed out that we have been making progress and the contract has been submitted with N.S.S.S.D. It has not been signed by the Village as yet. We are now in process of holding a series of hearings for the internal system, these hearings being required by law. Sewer improvement has to be ordered by the Council, Mr. Meyers stated, There was the question raised in the last meeting of referendum and Mr. Meyers explained that this can not be done, according to law. The hearing on December 5, 1963 was held for discussions on the proposed main: interceptor system. This is the portion of the system the laterals are hooked onto. The main part of the system is to be assessed area -wide throughout the Village. The Council has six months from the hearing date in which to decide whether or not improvements are to be ordered. The areas for this hearing, December 12, are Pinewood, north of County Rd. H2, Arden Avenue over to Long Lake Road and the area known as the "Twelve Oaks" area north of County Road H. The hearing at this time is specifically for laterals. Properties are to be assessed by the front foot for this particular improvement. Mr. Meyers stated that if the Council decides there is enough interest, as evidenced by these hearings and letters sent in, they would have -i- to order the main interceptor and then the laterals. Next week's hearing will cover the area with larger lots. It was again pointed out that the primary purpose of the hearing was to supply the residents with information as to what the entire sewer program is about. This includes engineering details and the financial proposals in- volved. This will give everyone the chance to sea how it affects him individual- ly and, if he does not approve, to so voice his objections, or clarify any misunderstandings. If the improvement is ordered, assessment hearings will be held at a later date. So there can be no misunderstanding, Mr. Meyers again reiterated "The hearing tonight is primarily to see whether or not these improvements should be ordered." Mr. Meyers then introduced Mr. Les Knutsen, Engineer with Comstock Davis who gave a review of the technical background of this project. A series of maps were displayed which defined the area to be covered by sewer improve- ment, method of drainage, and the proposed building which would house the maintenance equipment for the Village. Mr. Knutsen stated that seven reports were submitted +o the Council representing a great deal of consideration on their part in the entire matter. He gave a review of the items discusses last week involving the construction of the main interceptor system to serve the entire village. He emphasized that this is a drainage proposal for the community and not a storm drainage system. The drainage system concerns three areas all outletting to Rice Creek. The system itself has a twofold purpose elevation and soil type had to be considered. The additional feature of the drainage system is the addition of culverts over all roads and right of ways. The proposed construction takes into consideration the present needs and future development requirements. It is of sufficient depth to permit lateral lines to be connected to the interceptor. He stated the lines proposed serve only the Village of MDundsview -no other. The type of system which was decided upon is strictly a gravity system. The Council had requested they make a survey of the soil and samples were on display with reports accompanying each one for those who might wish this information. Mr. Knutsen also explained other features of the construction program which are that the trenches will be closed as soon as possible so roads and streets may be kept open to traffic with as little inconvenience as possible. The County will participate financially in this betterment program. The proposal also is to restore all boulevards with suitable lawn grass. He explained that the intent is to provide for minimum maintenance with the least possible cost. Maintenance and future construction are of the type which can be handled by Village forces with a minimum of equipment. Mr. Knutsen discussed the matter of street resurfacing after the work is completed. This portion of the work can not follow immediately since the ground should be allowed approximately a year to settle and pack down by use. The Council will determine the proper time and give approval for this work. This plan will save the Village money and result in better auality roads. Any of the county roads disturbed during the course of construction will be restored and this matter will have to be resolved with the Council and the County. Upon instruction from the Council, estimates were prepared on certain types of equipment necessary for repairing breaks in lines, etc. Maintenance of a sewer system will be more costly than for water. This also includes construction of a maintenance and storage building to house the necessary equipment and to provide additional space for future needs. He stated that 50 year or more service could be expected out of construction of this utility and, therefore, maintenance equipment to service it should be considered. Mr. Knutsen also stated the Council had requested them to give a report on backlot construction, which is the matter of individual service from laterals if constructed from the backlot line, for those properties located in the Pinewood and Twelve Oaks areas. This type of construction vould cost approximately $250.00 additional. In closing he stated he wanted to again emphasize that this construction is merely a proposal and the reports and information submitted are primarily to arrive at costs. Mr. Meyers brought up the matter of easements and stated that the Village had written various persons in the area requesting easements and appointments for discussions with these property owners are scheduled to begin on December 14, 1963, and continuing through to January 4, 1964. Any- one contacted should appear at the Village Hall at the appointed time. Sheets were distributed showing the method by which the improvements will be paid. (copy attached) A short recess was taken, after which Mr. James Olson of Juran Moody discussed the financing of this program. He stated that the problems in our area are different from those in a developed community, but they have had many, many years of experience in evaluating a situation of this nature and can do so competently. He began by stating he wanted to answer a few questions which were raised at last week's hearing. One of them was whether or not the Village could afford this type of improvement -cost compared to assessed valuation. He stated that he was very confident we could do so dollar wise, and that it would not be anything unusual today. He asked that we bear in mind the cost -6 is not only for sanitary sewer service but for surface drainage, road re- surfacing and restoration items as well as a maintenance and storage building for equipment to service the system. He again stated he wished to commend the Council and the Village Attorney in their selection of a complete plan, which he felt to be wise even though the cost appears high at the time. It will do away with doing it a portion at a time like many other suburban areas do. The assessment program considers the degree of benefit which applies to all property today as well as for the future. He went on to explain the est- imated figures which they had provided on the sheets distributed to the audience, and to answer any questions. He particularly explained the $4.o0 monthly (or $48.00 per year) estimated sewer rental charge as the question had been raised as to the reason for the apparently high charge. He stated $2.00 of this figure was to go to the Village for maintenance and the remaining $200 to the District. These are estimated figures and perhaps will be less. Mr. Hodges took the floor and asked for comments or questions from the audience. OBJECTIONS were voiced by the following persons: George Jackson 8300 Hwy. 8 His main question was, "When will the super highway go through and what changes will it make in my area He still objects on the basis of too great a cost for his 80 acre area. He also asked if the sewer construction would be revised to correspond with any new changes in this super highway between the present time and the time of actual construction of the sewer. Raymond W. Faricy, Attorney speaking for Don Voge Hwy 8, Co. Road J He again stressed the point Mr. Voge had previously mentioned- that of sewer necessity for the entire Village when only a few actually need it. He compared our plan for a complete system to that constructed in White Bear, which he says later -7- posed a problem for persons wishing to sell their property and not being able to do so because of the very high assessments. Charles Morrison 2071 Oakwood Drive He asks why the need for sewer. Expense is high. Does not see that there is a contamination problem. William Frits 8072 Long Lake Road made some statements in opposition relating to the high cost and the degree in which we could become involved because of thehigh cost. Robert Hillyard 2166 Hwy #10 He feels no need for sewer. Many problems are posed by various groups of people, but he does not feel the need is there. Thosespeaking in FAVOR of the proposal were: Melford Christensen, (Area Representative of the N.S.S.S.D.) He reviewed the background of the sewer program and the need for it as voiced by the people when he was a former Council member. He explained that the law does not provide for referendum. In his experience in the area, he feels the need for sewer has come -there is a definite contamination problem -he feels the Council is farsighted in recognizing it. He thinks we are doing it in an economical way -it could cost more as time goes on. Bob Killeen 2+25 Ridge Lane He says he has no sewer problems. Feels sewer is inevitable. The Council should be allowed to proceed with the system as they have made a thorough study of the problem. Mr. Sullivan, Village Trustee, asked to make a few points in behalf of the Council and himself in answer to various questions raised at both meetings. He stated that the Council had the power to act relative to sewers and actually that is not the primary factor involved. In his opinion, he stated that it is not a necessary conclusion that all absentees are in "favor" or "against" the proposed system. People are reluctant to turn out and it seems they turn out, generally, when they have something to discuss or a question to ask. He assured all that the ideas expressed at -.8- the hearings are of concern to all members of the Council, and will be weighed along with a number of other things before coming to a final decision. If sewer is approved for the Village, it should not be construed to mean that we will immediately have commercial development where we have not had it before. Some persons have expressed the feeling that the "cards are stacked" relating to the sewer proposal, but he assured everyone that this is not the case and it is disturbing to hear such comments. He went on to explain the matter of taxes and stated this is not merely a Village problem, but a school problem as well and he hoped that some day the two may work together as a whole for the District. Mr. Hodges closed the meeting and asked anyone who wished to do so to come forward and register his name as being either "for" or "against" sewer: Those OPPOSING were: Marie Hillyard M. A. Lundquist Frank Gabrysh Mr. Mrs. Charles Morrison Mr. Mrs. Wilfred James Ambrose DeGrot �s Gary K. Lang George Petro Frank Nickel Roger D. Bye Stephen Chapman Martha Chapman Robert H. Hillyard George E. Jackson William O. Frits -9- 2166 Highway 10 2750 County Rd. H2 2088 County Rd. J 2071 Oakwood Drive 5080 Brighton Lane 8123 Woodlawn Dr. 2242 Lambert Ave. 2133 Terace Dr. 5066 Brighton Lane 1936 Co. Rd. I. 2313 Knoll Dr. 2313 Knoll Dr. 2166 Hwy. 10 8300 Hwy. 8 8072 Long Lake Rd. A letter of OBJECTION was received from Raymond W. Faricy, Law Offices of D. D. Wozniak, Minnesota Bldg., St.Paul, Minnesota in behalf of Donald Voge. The letter was dated December 10, 1963. at 10.20 P.M. mk 12/16/63 There being no further matters to discuss, the meeting adjourned Respectfully submitted,