HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1964/01/14PROCEEDINGS 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 Village Hall, 2401 Highway 10, on January 14,
1964 at 8:05 P.M. for the purpose of holding a Public Hearing
on the proposed construction of a 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, Al Anderson, Fiscal
Agent, and John Sullivan, Ingram Rusted and Charles D.
LaVaque (Mr. LaVaque arrived during the meeting), Village
Trustees, Paul Boog, Adm. Clerk and Les Knutsen, Engineer,
Comstock Davis
The meeting was turned over to Richard Meyers who stated
this was the fourth hearing scheduled, and read the Notice of
Hearing in part as follows:
for the proposed construction of a sanitary improvement
consisting of sanitary sewer laterals and service con-
nections to furnish sewer service to the properties
described below as the properties to be assessed. The
improvement includes a general street resurfacing
program on the streets described within the area describ-
ed below.
The estimated cost of the above improvement is
$1,201,000.
The area proposed to be assessed for said improve
ment will include 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).
A long the West Corporate limits from County
Road "H" to County Road "J County Road J"
from West Corporate Limits to Jackson Drive ex-
tended (East Corporate Limits). On Jackson Drive
extended (East Corporate Limits) from County Road J
to Ardan Avenue. On Ardan Avenue from Jackson Drive
to Long Lance Road. On Long Lake Road from Ardan
Avenue to County Road "H -2" from Long Lake Road to
Fairchild Avenue. On Fairchild Avenue from County
Road "H -2" to County Road "H
Notice of the hearing was published on two dates--
January 2 and January 9, 1964. 883 notices were sent out for
this hearing to every available address including some based on
water billings. Approximately 75 persons attended the hearing.
Mr. Meyers gave a general review of the areas covered
by the first, second and third hearings, as previously set
forth in the minutes of )ecember 5, December 12 and December 19,
1963. This meeting, the fourth scheduled, covered lateral imp-
rovements for the large lot areas north of Highway 10 and west
of Long Lake Road, generally, and south of Highway 10, and
west of Fairchild Avenue. This was the second hearing for the
area on the grounds that complaints were received from people
in this particular area who did not receive notices, or they
were not in proper form. The rehearing was to correct any of
-2-
these deficiencies. Any parties not actually receiving
written notices were asked to cc. forward and have their
names recorded. None appeared.
Mr. Meyers gave a short review of the history of the
sewer improvement program, as was outlined in the December 19,
1963 hearing, for the benefit of those who were not at previous
meetings. He stated 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
they began the immediate investigation of possible outlets for
a sewer system. Methods were discussed at that time, but there
was no sewage outlet available. In 1959 there were numerous
requests for consideration of either a sanitary sewer system
or water, and the Council requested the Village Engineer to
make a preliminary study for the Village.
On July 28, 1959, Dr. Houle gave a report on the need
for both sewer and water in the Village. 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 the following villages met to form a district for the
purpose of finding an outlet for sewage disposal, namely:
Blaine, Brooklyn Park, Spring Lake Park, Fridley, Coon Rapids,
and Mounds View. Brooklyn °ark has since left the district.
-3-
Fridley has decided to remain.
He reviewed the negotiations with Arden Hills, which
began in 1959, for an outlet through the Twin City Arsenal.
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 -we accepted the first one, that of Minneapolis
sewer collection. In September of 1960 the Village received a
preliminary report for its own sewer system within the Village.
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
past the N.S.S.S.D. bill and it was passed in that year. This
gave powers to actually build an interceptor system. In Nov-
ember of 1962 we met with Arden Hills and Arsenal officials to
discuss various means of hooking onto their system. In February
of 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. Meanwhile, we
-4-
were preparing plans with the N.S.S.S.D. which would provide
us with an outlet. A contract has now been let to begin the
main interceptor near Fridley. Ground is being broken for
that this week. Other contracts are being let now. Mounds
View has not signed the contract with N.S.S.S.D. as yet. This
is a decision to be made by the Council. Spring Lake Park has
signed the contract.
Mr. Meyers emphasized that the subject for discussion was
the construction of our internal system within the Village of
Mounds View. The first general hearing was village -wide for
the purpose of discussing the main interceptor system, the last
two hearings (actually three) described the laterals running
up and down the streets in front of the various properties.
This fourth hearing covered the laterals for the area designated
in the notice. He stated Mr. Knutsen, the Village Engineer,
would give a brief resume of the technical data on this project
and Mr. Anderson, the Fiscal Agent, would give an explanation
of the methods proposed to finance this particular project.
Mr. Meyers again stated the estimated costs for the pro-
posed sanitary sewer, surface drainage and street improvement
program would probably exceed $4,000,000 (the exact proposal
figure being $4,419,126), providing the entire system is built.
It is not known yet whether we will build whole or portions of
it. He stated the three main items for discussion which are:
-5-
surface drainage, building a sanitary sewer system and re-
building and resurfacing existing roads.
Mr. Les Knutsen, Village Engineer, proceeded with a
review of the technical data. He explained the maps on display
illustrating the various phases of this construction. Soil
samples were taken within the area and analyzed, and these were
on display for those who wished to check them. He stated the
Council had directed them to make an investigation in January
of 1959. Illustrations by map showed the main interceptor system
and the various collection points, and the proposed super high-
way as it is now laid out for the area He stated that construction
will have to be modified for the right-of-way the Minnesota High-
way Department will take at that time. There will be no loss
to the Village by any highway changes, should they occur.
The third map showed the proposed drainage system and gave
an explanation of the original requests for such a system to
correct existing deficiencies in the Village. It is a system
of ditches and conduit which will drain present low areas in
the Village of surface waters. He stated the second real benefit,
at the time of sanitary sewer construction, is tld it would pro-
vide an outlet for the discharge of well- pointing water.
A question was raised asking why this water could not be
discharged through the sanitary sewer system. Mr. Knutsen
stated that iL could be done for the present, but it would require
-6-
cleaning the lines selected for this purpose and once any portion
of this line isin service, it would be costly to discharge well
point water into the lines. This water would be metered and
charged for accordingly.
He explained that the system of ditches as proposed is
not to be construed as a storm sewer system in the true sense
of the word. They are merely to receive surface water drainage.
The ditch system is divided into three districts somewhat similar
to those of the sanitary sewer district.
He mentioned that a question was asked at a previous
hearing "Will it affect the water level of Spring Lake
Mr. Knutsen replied that if the system is constructed, two
districts south of Highway 10 would contain flow control centers
so it could be stopped at these particular points and allowed
to back up.
Continuing with the discussion on drainage, Mr. Knutsen
stated that the system itself, as proposed, would not correct
every minor drainage problem in the district. It is designed
to accommodate present and future development in the area.
He reviewed the original three basic outlets considered-
Twin City Arsenal, N.S.S.S.D. and the Rice Creek sewage treatment,
the latter being denied by the Health Department.
Mr. Knutsen explained that the internal system illustrated
-7-
by map would outlet at two specific points: Along County Road H
extended, immediately west to Trunk Highwy 10 and secondly, along
County Road H between Pleasant View and Knollwood.
Certain of the construction features proposed for sanitary
sewer construction are as follows:
1. Backcasting of the excavations. This makes it easier
to maintain traffic and the safety features are esp-
ecially attractive.
2. Alignment of the sewer lines, where it is necessary,
has been laid to conform with future street patterns
which the Council has unofficially adopted.
3. The matter of restoration of County roads and streets
is also included and the cost is considered. Restor-
ation of boulevards disturbed by the construction is
also proposed and this would mean grading, spreading
of top soil and seeding with grass -type seed.
Mr. Knutsen again stressed the fact that the intent of
the sanitary sewer improvement is to provide a minimum maintenance
utility at the lowest possible cost.
He continued the discussion with an explanation of the
manner in which the Village proposed to restore street surfacing
after the work is completed. It will be similar to that in
Richfield, but going one stop further in that the blacktop surface
would be sealcoated to provide a slightly more dense surface. He
stated that the streets should be allowed to condition for one
season before final surfacing and the County roads for two seasons.
This would provide a much better quality street and road and be
more economical for the Village. Restoration of the County roads
-8-
is by oral agreement with the County officials and an inventory
will be made of the surfaces disturbed, the value will be de-
termined and the portions to be borne by the Village and the
County will be agreed upon at that time. The County will bear
the cost of the betterment to meet their requirements.
He further explained that a utility of this nature, tak-
ing into consideration proper construction, probably can last
for a period in excess of 50 years. Therefore, a maintenance
program should be considered and would require certain equipment,
such equipment not necessarily confined to sewer use. He pointed
out the Village has the option of owning the equipment or con-
tracting for it, the latter ultimately more expensive.
Housing the equipment was the next item the Village re-
quested investigated and he illustrated the proposed maintenance
and storage building by map. Construction would be similar to
the Mounds View Village Hall building. The proposed total cost
of the project includes the cost of the building and equipment
which would be paid for by assessment in part and tax levy.
In closing, Mr. Knutsen stated he wanted to make two
definite points -the construction is a proposed, not final,
plan. The costs Mr. Anderson, the fiscal agent, would discuss
were supplied, most generally, by their firm and they were
estimates. Some increments were added for possible future needs
-9-
and the cost figures are good through the year 1966.
Mr. Meyers made several more comments on questions which
came up at previous hearings such as, "Why is this matter
(sewer proposal) not put to election He explained, as in
previous hearings, that State law now placed the responsibility
with the Village Council for making the decision whether or not
to go ahead with this project. The law requires certain hearings
be held. The hearings are for explanation and airing objections.
Written objections are also acceptable and will be recorded.
He explained that verbal statements would be taken later in
the meeting and those not wishing to express themselves orally
would have the opportunity of signing their names to sheets
designated "For" or "Against" the proposal.
He explained the matter of easement requirements-- approxi-
mately 100 are needed to complete the system. Appointments were
scheduled at previously appointed times for those wishing to
confer with the Village Attorney on the matter. Some persons
have donated them, which is very helpful since the Village does
not have a budget for the acquisition of easements at this time.
They have tried to conform easements with future road plans and
future needs of the Village.
In reply to the questions asking how this improvement
will be paid for and when will assessments begin, he stated
if the Council approves the project, the assessment hearings
-10-
would probably be held some time in 1965 and the first install-
ment on taxes would start in 1966. The Council may decide to
have the assessment hearings early, but 1966 would be reasonable.
Prepayment can be arranged for ahead of time.
In reply to statements by some persons that this will be
too large a money burden for them and they will let their land
go for taxes, he stated that none have done so thus far. If
any land is made available through delinquent taxes, it will be
used for park purposes.
Mr. Anderson, Fiscal Agent, of Juran Moody, passed out
sheets to those attending the meeting giving a cost analysis
of the proposed sewer improvement, surface drainage and street
improvement plan (Copy attached).
Be stated they were requested by the Council to make a
financial analysis of the project defining the methods to be
used for payment, including the operation and maintenance of
it. They followed the generally accepted practices for this
type of improvement in arriving at the costs.
Basically, there are three main sources of revenue:
1. Special assessments.
2. Sewer rentals used for operation of the system
and operation of maintenance facilities.
3. Tax levy.
He,then took an example from the cost sheet and followed it
through, explaining the individual costs comprising the estimated
total figure. In closing he stated that anyone who wished
to do so could ask him questions during a later question and
answer period.
Mr. Meyers resumed the meeting asking for any questions
from the floor, which would be answered by the speakers. The
following persons volunteered questions.
Raymond W. Faricy, Attorney
Minnesota Bldg., St. Paul, Minn.
"Has the Health Department or Dr. Houle made any re-
examination as to the sanitary sewer system since 1959
Mr. Sullivan replied that Dr. Houle made one check in
a low land area of Twelve Oaks last summer. No correction
could be made without sewer. Nothing has been done by
the Health Dept. since 1959.
Mr. Faricy also asked for a clarification of the ditch
costs which was given by Mr. Knutsen.
Joseph Stork
8016 Red Oak Drive
"Did the same engineer make water and sewer estimates:"
Answer: Yes
Mr. Stork: Price much higher on sewer. Cannot afford_
Mrs. Samuel Fried
2069 Sherwood
"What is the sequence of construction- -some interceptors,
some laterals, or what
Answer: Most likely as interceptor construction progressed,
laterals could be added. Council will determine
which interceptors will be built first, most
likely based on the need.
George Jackson
8300 Hwy. 8
"R to the interceptor, when will people find out
about it in our area when some adjustment has to be made
-12-
due to a change in the plan of the super highway
Answer: A definite establishment of highway right -of-
way has to be determined first. As soon as
highway ;plans are made, revisions can be made.
Mr. Jackson: "Re interceptor, how come it has to be
such a large size pipe
Answer: Minnesota Health Department dictates diameter
of pipe. Takes into consideration present
and future needs as well.
William Frits
8072 Long Lake Road
"On estimating sewer rental charge of $4.00 monthly, is
this based on the assumption there will be a total hook-
up? Is rental fee going to be assessed against entire
village or only those hooking up
Answer: These are the maximum charges. If wrong, have
to raise taxes. District portion of $4.00
figure is made "per hookup
Mr. Frits: "What happens if service rendered to only
portion of village? If cost tole same, who
will pay for it?
Answer: Cost based on pretty nearly 100% hookup.
Further questions discussed were:
"Elaborate on lift station and what areas are back -bound by them."
"Are there any interceptor lines running through northern edge
of Village Answer: No
"In event sewer did go in, what are rules on hooking up? Is it
mandatory? Answer: This has not been discussed as yet.
"Do the numbers on area map showing District #1 and District #2
indicate priority Answer: No. Just a split in the district
by large lots and smaller lots.
"What is involved in dealing with the Government? I am not satisfied
with the answers of the Village and Engineer on dealing with the
outlet through Arden Hills. Is it a result of ill feelings with
Arden Hills?"
This was answered by Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Meyers who read
the turndown letter dated May 15, 1963 from the Government
denying an outlet through the Arsenal system.
"If a property owner lives on the boundary of Fridley and Mounds
View, how will it be determined whether they would hook up to
Fridley, or would they have an additional sewer line going down
their street Answer: Health Dept. has a given number of
connections available for Fridley.
-13-
When that number is exhausted,
which is possible at present, they
would not be allowed to hook up to
Fridley.
"Over how many years' time is this cost to be spread
Answer: 30 years.
"Re cost of street improvements, is there a difference in cost of
Village and County roads
Answer: The cost difference to property
owner would be the same.
"Has Council made surveys how it would benefit the community?
Any industry to move out if sewer available
Answer: Nothing definite. Anticipated that
sewer will open door.
Mr. Meyers closed the general questioning period and asked
for the expressions of verbal opinions, "for" or "against" sewer.
OPPOSED:
Mr. Raymond W. Faricy, in behalf of Donald Voge,
Highway 8, Co. Rd. J
Realize need for several areas. Request Council to give
thought to limiting service to those areas rather than
village -wide.
Robert Hillyard
2166 Hwy. 10
Siegic tanks do work. Thinks Council should table whole
thing. Meetings show majority "against Doesn't that do
any good?
Mrs. E. B. Warner
8295 Red Oak Drive
Cost too high. Lives all alone.
George Jackson
8300 Highway 8
Opposed to it.
A. C. Holtz
2655 Woodcrest Drive
Thinks it is too soon.
Joseph A. Stork
8016 Red Oak Drive
kmo, Opposed to it. Can't pay.
-14-
August Mueller
8140 Eastwood Road
Can't pay for it.
Mrs. Felicia Leitz
7092 Pleasant View Drive
Too costly.
William Frits
8072 Long Lake Road
A11 meetings held so far show majority opposed. How
much will this cost the school district? Net result-
opposed.
Roger Bye
1936 Co. Road I
Why not ask each individual home owner what he wants?
Robert H. Eickstadt
2155 Sherwood Road
Since Council is representative of the people, let people
vote.
Abner Jones
7966 Eastwood Dr.
Not opposed not in favor of it. Know it is inevitable.
Is there any provision for dividing up larger lots?
IN FAVOR:
Gaines T. Scherma
2077 Pinewood Drive
In favor of it.
Mrs. Florence Peterson
2277 Knoll Drive
In favor.
This brought to a close the verbal expressions "For"
and "Against
The following persons signed their names in OPPOSITION to
sewer:
Fred D. Allen
Samuel B. Fried
Arlene M. Fried
-15-
8431 Groveland Rd.
2069 Sherwood
from:
mk
1/25/64
Dwain Kinkel
Swen Theilin
Byron P. Draxten
Harper I. Pabst
Wm. Werner
Roy Juntunen
Willard J. Downing
D. D. Wendt
Lloyd Remmers
Roger D. Bye
Carl B. Fisher
Howard W. Thomsen
Harold F. Glaser
Frank Gabrysh
Conrad J. Wilson
Joseph A. Stork
Robert H. Eickstadt
Two letters were received by the Village opposing sewer
Mrs. Philip Palmer 8360 Eastwood Rd.
Matt Moliers 1925 Woodale Dr.
A petition was also received at this meeting signed by
143 persons FAVORING sewer improvement. These people live in
the area from Highwy #8 to the East, to Jackson at West, Oakwood
on the North and to County Road H -2 at the South.
There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned
at 10:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Llfbyd
-16-
2464 Ridge Lane
7237 Knollwood
7226 Knollwood
7745 Eastwood
2101 Sherwood Rd.
2114 Sherwood Rd.
7885 Sunnysid Rd
Spring Lake Road
8065 7474 Groveland
1936 Co. Rd I
7457 Pleasant View Dr.
7425 Pleasant View D
7820 Eastwood Drive
2088 Count J.
7877 Sunnyside Rd.
8016 Red Oak Dr.
2155 Sherwood
anchard, Village Clerk