Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1963/12/19PROCEEDINGS OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL VILLAGE OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Public Meeting of the Vi.11aise Council of the Village of Mounds View, Minnesota was held at the Edgewood Junior High School in the Village of Mounds View on December 19, 1963 at 8:05 P.M. for the purpose of holding a Public Hearing on the proposed construction of a sanitary sewer improvement syr.em 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 and Les Knutsen, Engineer, Comstock Davis Mr. Meyers read the Notice of Hearing on Proposed Sanitary Sewer and Street Resurfacing Improvement which read in part as follows: "the proposed construction cf a sanitary 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 re- surfacing program on the streets within the area described below. The estimated cost of the above improvement is $1,201,000. The area proposed to be assessed for said improvement will irclude all properties lying within an area bounded by a line running as follows: On County Road "H" from Fairchild Avenue to Pleasant View Drive (West Corporate Limits), Along the West Corporate Limits from County Road "H" to County Road "J County Road J from West Corporate Limits to Jackson Drive extended (East Corporate Limits). On Jackson Drive extended (E Corporate Limits) from County Road J to Ardan Avenue. On Ardan Avenue from Jackson Drive to Long Lake Road. On Long Lake Road from Ardan Avenue to County Road "H -2 On County Road "H -2" from Long Lake Road to F `.rchild Avenua. On Fairchild Avenue from County Road "H -2" to County Road "H Notice of the hearing was published on two dates December 5 and December 12, 1963. Slightly over 900 notices were mailed out for this hearing, some of which were based on water billings. Approximately forty persons attended the hearing. Mr. Meyers stated that the hearing on this date was the third and last hearing scheduled for the improvement consisting of sanitary sewer lateral lines. This meeting covered the area north of Highway 10 and West of Long Lake Road, Knollwood area and West of Groveland, involving the large lots. The first hearing was for the whole Village covering 1,960 parcels of land, and notices were sent to all addresses available. This hearing was for the main interceptor line. The second hearing was for the laterals to serve the area generally called "Pinewood" and "Tvelvc. Oak The hearing at this time is for sanitary sewer laterals in the area described above and specifical- ly detailed in the published notice on Page (1) of these minutes. Mr. Meyers reviewed the history of the sewer improvement program from the time it was first presented to the Council. The problem first arose in September of 1958 at which time it was brought to the attention of the Council. The Village was incorporated in this same year and immediately began investigat- ing the possible outlets for a sewer system. Petitions signed by 200 persons had been presented to the Council indicating a need for sewer improvement in certain areas. Methods were discussed at that time but 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, at that time, the Council requested the Village Engineer to make a preliminary study for the Village. Mr. Meyers pointed out that the Council is legally charged with checking out any requests that appear to be reasonable -2. and the sewage problem would come under this heading. The District released Brooklyn lark within the confines of the District. On May 4, 1959 the Council authorized the Village Engineer to prepare a pre- liminary report giving facts and figures. 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 definitely was a contamination problem. He warned that both systems should be looked into. Decision was made in favor of proceeding with the water. The Fall of 1959 was the beginning of the N.S.S.S.D. and five villages met to form a district for the purpose of finding an outlet for sewage disposal, namely Blaine, Spring Lake Park, Fridley, Coon Rapids and Mounds View. The Village of New Brighton was invited at that time but it was not interested as they had an outlet. He explained that there is a continual battle to keep the streams and rivers from becoming polluted and the problem of finding an outlet, therefore, becomes more difficult. Rice Creek is our only Village outlet and this was turned down since it would dispose effluent above the City of Minneapolis water supply. In 1959 we began negotiations with Arden Hills to try to hook up through the Twin City Arsenal. In February of 1960 our Village Engineer had contacted Minneapolis and at that time the City of Minneapolis was very reluctant to give up an outlet to any of the suburbs. The Engineer reported that we were getting nowhere with Minneapolis and they would not give us permission. No specific reason was given. Request for a $70,000 loan from the U.S. government was made so that we could make a study of the situation and this was turned down as they said they did not feel we were qualified to receive such a grant. There followed various discussions again with Arden Hills for the Arsenal outlet. In July of 1960 the Engineering Committee of the N.S.S.S.D. submitted -3 a plan for drainage--five different methods were actually proposed, and we accepted the first one -that of Minneapolis sewer collection. The Pigs Eye facility is to be enlarged. In :September of 1960 the Village received a preliminary report for its own sewer system within the Village. This was filed with the Village, which was the basis for the projects and plans discussed in the last two hearings. In the meantime, negotiations were still going on with Arden Hills hoping for some means of an outlet. We had the approval for a sewage system but not the outlet. In February of 1961 the Village of Mounds View requested legislation to pass the N.S.S.S.D. bill and it was passed in that year. In November of 1962 we met with Arden Hills and Arsenal officials to discuss various means of hooking onto their system. In February, 1963 we made a formal request for a utility sales contract with the U.S. Army requesting that we be permitted to hook onto one of their sewer lines and we would pay them on a metered basis. In March of 1963 we wrote the Army again asking for an answer and on May 15, 1963, a letter was received by the Village of Mounds View from them denying an outlet for the Arsenal system. They gave as their reason a security problem. Since that time the Village has been presented with a contract from N.S.S.S.D. It has not been signed by the Village of Mounds View as yet. This contract would provide us with an outlet. Mr. Meyers pointed out that now one of the main problems has been solved -an outlet has been provided. The problem we are trying to resolve now is, "Should an internal sewer system be constructed in the Village of Mounds View The law required that an election be held for water installation, but not for sewer, and since 1959 even water systems can be completed without a vote of the people. To clarify some previous questions, Mr. Meyers stated -4- that it takes Council action to put in a system, The law does not provide for referendum on this particular question as it does on school or liquor bonds. The whole burden falls on the Village Council for the decision of sewer improvement. The law does provide that public hearings be held, and the Council is conducting these on December 5, 12 and 19, 1963. These hearings are based on information from the Engineers, the financing organization and the people of Mounds View. The purpose of the hearings is to present the people with information secured, plus giving them the opportunity of voicing their objections. Mr. Meyers explained that those wishing to make objection may do so toward the end of the meeting, or if they prefer to sign their names only, sheets will be provided for this purpose as well. Approximately one hundred easements have been requested by the Village and cards have been mailed to these property owners. Meetings have been set up with the persons who have not sent in their cards. These are being held at the Village Hall beginning on Saturday, December 14, 1963 and ending January 4, 1964. These are free easements at no cost to the Village. Mr. Meyers again stated he wished to make it clear to all that the figures presented at these meetings are estimates- -not final as no final bids have been let. It is not known what the actual contract cost will be at this time. Mr. Meyers then introduced Mr. Les Knutsen, Engineer with Comstock Davis, who gave a technical review of the background of this project. He explained the various maps displayed which defined the areas to be covered by sewer improvement, method of drainage, and the maintenance and storage building proposed to house the necessary equipment for servicing. Mr. Knutsen stated that they had put a great deal of study into this project and furnished the Council with numerous reports. These reports were on the interceptor system, the lateral system and supplementary to determine costs, and on surface water drainage. Mr. Knutsen gave a review of the items discussed at the previous hearings involving the construction of the main interceptor system to serve the entire Village. He explained in detail the problems involved in a surface drainage system. This is a very important feature, since the drainage system is the beginning of the storm system for the Village. It is not to be construed, however, as a storm system at this time. Elevation and soil type had to be considered. An additional feature of the drainage system is the addition of culverts over all roads and right of ways. He emphasized the proposed construction would take into consideration all present needs as well as future. The lines proposed will serve the village of Mounds View only. The Village Council had requested soil samples be taken and analyz- ed, and these were on display with accompanying reports for those who wished to see them. Mr. Knutsen stated that soil type presents more of a problem for sewer than for water installation. The type of system decided upon is strictly a gravity system. He pointed out another construction feature is that 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 fin- ancially in this betterment program. The proposal also is to restore all boulevards, which have been disturbed, with suitable lawn grass. He stated that easements are along lines which would conform to future street plans in the Village. The primary bulk of construction will be in the street right of way. He also stated that it is more economical to construct lines in the street rather than from the backlot line. It is the intent of all con- -6 struction outlined at these hearings to provide a minimum maintenance utility at the least possible cost. A utility of this nature, taking into consider- ation proper construction, probably can last for a period in excess of 50 years. It is, therefore, wise to consider maintenance equipment to service it. Mr. Knutsen explained the matter of street resurfacing after the work is completed. It will be similar to that in Richfield, but the proposal here will go one step further and that is- -the blacktop surface would be seal coated to provide a slightly more dense surface. He stated that the streets should be allowed to condition for one winter season before final surfacing and the County roads for two seasons. This would provide a much better quality street and road, and in the end, be more economical for the Village. In certain areas there would be curbs for control of surface waters as well. He emphasized that a utility of this nature is costly, however, it does have quite a long service life if properly maintained. Maintenance will be higher than for water due to the nature of the materials, ground depth of lines and the fact that they do have a tendency to accumulate materials. The Council directed the Engineers to give consideration to equipment needed for maintaining this facility. He pointed out that the equipment could be used for other purposes and not necessarily restricted to sanitary sewer maintenance alone. It is necessary to provide an enclosure for storage of equipment and to provide space for performing minor repair jobs. A sketch was shown of a building adequate for present and future needs. In conclusion, Mr. Knutsen stressed the fact that the maps illustrated proposed construction, and did not mean that all of it has to be taken or any part of it. He stated again that the cost figures which they had supplied were conservative. -7- Mr. Meyers called attention to the items included in the sanitary sewer program which are: surface drainage, construction of sanitary sewer interceptors and laterals, complete street resurfacing, equipment necessary to service the sanitary sewer system and a maintenance building for storage and small repairs. Mr. Hodges took the floor at this time and sheets were distributed showing the method by which these improvements willte paid. (copy attached) A short recess was called. Mr. Hodges introduced Mr. James Olson of Juran Moody, who discussed the financial aspects of the plan. He explained that preliminary work done by the Engineers and information supplied from other sources were used in trying to work out a plan of financing which they feel is feasible for the Village. In a rapidly growing suburban area such as ours, financing is most important to the economic stability of the community. He stated this program does not necessarily mean this is the way it has to be done, but it is being considered by the Council, and for that reason it is explained in detail. The first step was to make an estimate of the principal and interest which might be required on bonds we would have to have. We can not go beyond thirty years for a bond issue, considering an improvement of this size and the amount of the assessments necessary. The cost of what it will take to operate a maintenance system is also considered. It is necessary to estimate where the money will come from to pay the money back. Basically, there are three sources: 1. Part will be assessed 2. Part will come from sewer rentals 3. Fart from a tax increase yr. Olson explained the assessment charges shown for the various size lots on the sheets which were distributed earlier. The assessments take -0- into consideration present and future costs of development. He felt that the charges shown were fair and equitable to present and future home owners. He explained the $4.00 per month (or $48.00 per year) sewer rental and stated that $2.00 of the monthly figure would go for the cost of operating Village equipment and the remaining $2.00 for the District. It is possible that these figures might be less. Mr. Olson also brought up the fact that the cost of installing sewer from the lot line into the house is not included in these figures. In closing he stated he would be happy to answer any questions which would help clarify this program. Mr. Hodges then asked for a question and answer period, and for those who objected to or favored the sanitary sewer program. OBJECTIONS were expressed by: Joseph Stork 8016 Red Oak Drive He asks "Why shouldn't everybody be assessed the same He did not need water but went along with it. Feels sewer will be the same. Area involved is too large- -too costly. Wm. Frits 8072 Long Lake Rd. Need for sewer was first introduced as a health necessity. Have water now -feels this should take care of health needs. Feels an increased cost for sewer by 1/3 on a $15,000 home is unreasonably high. Hook -up charges would be added. Feels Council has already made up its mind about sewer. Robert Hillyard 2166 Highway 10 Feels people first moved to area to be independent of city. If septic tank not too small, it will work. Feels question of sewer improvement already decided upon. Does not believe there is a contamination problem. Carl Fisher 7457 Pleasant View Drive If needed badly in Twelve Oaks and Pinewood areas, he would not complain too much. Thinks it is cheaper to put in another drainfield. Sewer too expensive at this time for large lots. -9- Gerald Blanski 1881 Wooddale Dr. He is against sewer but realizes certain areas do need it. Asks "Is there any probability that when the main interceptor system is put in, certain areas may get sewer first who need it, and those who do not can get on ten years or so later? Do people have a choice to say they don't want it? If we get sewer, will the lot size requirements be dropped down Luther Skog 7465 Spring Lake Park Rd. Feels people who appear at meetings are only those opposing sewer. He does not want does not need can't afford sewer. Has almost 2 acres land. Suggests sending out letter to property owners asking for a "yes" or "no" answer to sewer. Mrs. Wm. Frits 8072 Long Lake Rd. Says we can get very few communicable diseases from contamination. Asks if we have to pay for cost of putting basements back in shape after sewer installed. She objects to paying cost of putting sewer into home. At this point Mr. Hodges explained that the hearings are held for the purpose of getting information to make a decision whether to put in sewer in part, or otherwise. Since we have gone this far, it is hard to drop the matter. The Council will have to decide whether they are making the right decision for the majority. Speaking in FAVOR of sewer: John Lauterbach 8193 Eastwood Dr. Asked, "Is there any time -table on when sewer and assessments will be collected? When will project be started? He felt the total cost wasn't very much. OPPOSING: D. D. Wendt 7474 Spring Lake Rd. Questioned whether all lines will be put in at same time or can those not wishing it be bypassed for a time? Would they still be assessed for the total cost even though they do not wish to hook on? Asked if $4,200,000 is total cost of sewer improvement program. Objects to bonds being twice the assessed value of Village. Okay to put sewer in areas where needed he does not need it too costly for his size lot. Wants to go on record as being opposed to entire sewer system. -10- At this point Mr. Hodges stated the estimated costs for the proposed sanitary sewer, surface drainage and street improvement program are a total of $4,419,126. The items making up this figure are: 1. Interceptor Sewers $1,016,450 2. Services on Interceptors 38,640 3. Laterals on Interceptors 598,400 4. Lateral Sewers 1,754,500 5. Services 186,486 6. Surface Drainage 297,050 7. Permanent Streets 527,600 Total $4,419,126 Proceeding with those who wished to express their opinions, the following OPPOSED sewer improvement: Roger Bye 1936 County Rd. I Resents statements made by people when they say those not attending hearing evidently in favor of sewer. Feels cards should be sent to property owners asking if "for" or "against" sewer. Doesn't feel those who want sewer should expect those who do not need it to help pay for it. Mrs. Phillip Palmer 8360 Eastwood Rd. Has 5 acres can't afford to pay for sewer. Older persons on limited incomes cannot afford costs. Letters of OBJECTION turned in during the hearing were received from the following persons: Fillmore V. Lindberg 8011 Sunnyside Rd. Has acre lot cost of sewer too high. Requests consideration such as lower front foot cost for those giving easements. Have water now why need for sewer? Mr. &Mrs. Bernard Scholzen 8285 Eastwood Rd. Cost of sewer more than value of their property. Mr. Mrs. Harold E. Wilcox 7815 Eastwood Dr. N.E. Has large lot which cannot now be divided. Pay for water first. Aware of sewer need prefer to wait indefinitely cost too high. There being no further matters to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. mk 12/20/63 Art Woversten 2001 Wooddale Dr. Alright for Village to own machinery bldg, but sewer is 10 yrs. too soon. Feis too much to go in debt for. The following persons signed their names in OPPOSITION to sewer: Joseph A. Stork 8016 Red Oak Dr. Donald Moldenhauer 8211 Red Oak Dr. Carl Fisher 7457 Pleasant View Howard Syversen 8040 Red Oak Drive Howard Thomsen 7425 Pleasant View Dr. Albert Foust 8290 Red Oak Dr. Mark Johnson 2097 Terrace Dr. Ralph Edberg 7860 Greenwood Irving Olund 1330 43d Ave. N.E. (property: 7360 Fairchild) Jesse Varns 7350 Fairchild Ave. Violet Grande H. J. Grande 5165 Long Lake Rd. Harvey Haaelius 2747 Co. Rd. I Donovan D. Wendt 7474 Spring Lake Road William Frits 8072 Long Lake Rd. Robert Chestek 8161 Spring Lake Rd. A. L. Petron 1885 Wooddale Dr. Leo Bringewatt 7980 Red Oak Dr. Ray J. Martin 1885 Hwy 10, Mpls. 32 Respectfully submitted,