HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-06-1997 Council PacketI
1
NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB SEWER PROJECT
ASSESSMENT HEARING
TUESDAY, MAY 6,1997 7:00 P.M.
ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA ^AY g
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Mayor Opens the Hearing
c/rvo
1997
Summary of Project Need
Summary of Project Design
Summary of Project Benefit
Summary of Assessment Financing
Public Comment
7. Closing of Hearing
8. Council Consideration of Adoption of Assessment Resolution
9. Adjournment
r
Public Attendance
Meeting D ate
C ouncil
Planning C ommission
□Park C ommission .
® Other Asajes^MeuT UeKEiVAC.
Please fill out the information
REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
V\crerrvA L^tie CooKrrei
duo'B
NAME (please print)
iDii&QlT"
ADDRESS
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME OR NUMBER
1.
2.
3.'
4.
5.
6.
1 l7^/fO/r9 /?l/'
L-C\w€-
(2h«clC I L-^icc j/^l \Jj.
14.
15._
091)95.4
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: May 2,19976'
ITEM NO:
Department Approval:
Name Ron Moorse
Title City Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
City Administrator's
Report
Item Description:
Assessment Hearing - North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Sewer Project
Attachments: A - Sample assessment notice packet as mailed to each owner
B - Assessment Roll
C - Letter mailed to Dr. Maresh and to George Johnson
D - Bid Summary (4/28/97 Letter from Tom Kellogg/Bonestroo)
E - Assessment Hearing Agenda
Background
The planning and approval process for the North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club sewer project
has ^en ongoing for approximately 2 -3 years. The process began when the North Long Lake area
was determined to be the top priority among the city's ten sewer hot spot areas, due to the number
of failing and nonconforming septic systems and the number of properties without alternate septic
sites. The process has included preliminary design and feasibility study, neighborhood meetings,
final design, a public hearing, obtaining bids, developing a proposed assessment roll, and providing
notification to property owners regarding their proposed assessment amounts and the assessment
hearing.
Assessment Hearing
The purpose of the assessment hearing is to obtain input from affected property owners regarding
the proposed assessment amounts. The agenda for the assessment hearing is as follows:
1. Mayor opens the hearing
2.
3.
4.
5.
Summary of project need
Summary of project design
Summary of project benefit
Summary of assessment financing
e 6.Public comment
Request for Council Action continued
page 2 of 3
March 19,1997
Item
7. Closing of hearing
8. Council consideration of adoption of assessment resolution
9. Adjournment
Assessment Roll
The proposed assessment roll reflects all properties in the project area paying the same assessment
amount. The assessment amount is $ 13,950. In addition, the Maresh property located west of North
Brown Road is to be assessed $19,083 due to the greater identified benefit to the property. The
paving of Dakota Avenue has been included in the total cost assessed to all properties.
Determination of Benefit
The assessment roll was based on the estimated amount of benefit generally received by the
properties in the project. The determination of benefit was based on a number of factors including
the following:
1. The cost of sewer versus the cost of a new septic system.
2.The cost of sewer versus a holding tank. Over a 15 year period (the period over
which the assessment is to be paid), ‘.he cost of a holding tank would be at least 2
times the cost of the sewer assessment.
3.The project involves the reconstruction of the local streets along with the sewer
installation. This is a substantial benefit beyond the benefit specific to the sewer.
In addition there are other factors more difficult to quantify but which do reflect significant benefit.
These include the ability to expand a house with sewer available versus septic, and the improved
marketability of a house with sewer versus a septic system.
Project Financing and Payment of Assessments
The total project cost, based on the recently completed bid process, is expected to be $956,300. The
project will be financed through the issuance of special assessment bonds. These bonds will be
repaid over a 15 year period. The majority of the revenues used to repay the bonds will come from
the special assessments. The remainder will be tax levy revenue.
The assessments will be payable over a 15 year period. The interest rate will be 7 to 8%. The first
payments will occur with taxes payable in 1998 (May and October). The initial payments will be
larger than normal because they will include interest for 3 montlis in 1997 in addition to the interest
Request for Council Action continued
page 3 of 3
March 19,1997
Item
for the 12 months of 1998. A spread sheet showing a projected payment schedule based on an 8%
interest rate is attached.
Objections and appeals
If a property owner wishes to appeal the assessment amount, the property owner must first submit
to the city a signed statement of objection to the assessment including the property address and
property identification number. This objection must be submitted at the assessment hearing. The
property owner must then initiate an appeal with the District Court within 30 days of the final order
of the city adopting the assessment roll.
Cost for Appeals and Easements
The assessment amounts were set substantially lower than the full actual project costs to reflect the
amount of benefit to the properties in an effort to avoid the expense of the appeal process-both for
the city and the property owners. Tax dollars are better spent on costs directly related to the sewer
project to reduce costs to the property owners rather than on legal expenses related to appeals.
Just as the city is assisting in bringing sewer to the area by reducing costs to the property owners,
project costs could be minimized if the property owners provide the easements needed for the project
at no cost to the city.
Resolution to Adopt the Assessment Roll
A resolution adopting the proposed assessment roll is attached for Council adoption.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the assessment roll for the North Long Lake/Long Lake
Country Club sewer project.
1
GITYofORONO
Municipal Offices
Street Address:
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066
GENERAL INFORMATION
NORTH LONG LAKE / LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB SEWER
The estimated cost of the North Long Lake / Long Lake Country Club sewer improvement is
$1,049,555. The estimated cost per unit (55 total units) is $19,083 per unit.
To ensure the amount of the assessment does not exceed the actual benefit to an individual property,
the City Council has determined that the City will reduce the unit assessment (for those properties
within the defined MUSA boundary and certain others) to $13,950 per unit. This represents a City
contribution of $5,133 per unit, or approximately $282,300.
In establishing this level of City contribution, the Council based its decision on a number of factors
including:
1.The average home within either neighborhood is benefited to the extent of
approximately $10,000 by avoiding the cost of constructing a new mound-type
sewage treatment system, which would be required on many properties if mumcipal
sewer is not provided.
2.The average home is fuither benefitted by the ability to use land currently devoted
to septic system uses, for other purposes such as accessory buildings, driveways, etc.
3.Many homes which would otherwise be forced to replace non-conforming septic •
systems with holding tanks, are substantially benefitted by avoiding the cost of
holding tank installation and maintenance. Annual holding tank maintenance costs
for a family of three may range from $3,000-$5,000 per year or more.
4.Municipal sewer provides a long-term solution eliminating the need to deal with
septic system failures and system replacement.
5.The potential for groundwater and surfacewater contamination caused by failing or
non-conforminf eptic systems is eliminated.
Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734)510
pie assessment notice indicates an interest rate of 8%, with the ai>sessment payable in 15 annual
installments. The City anticipates that the actual interest rate charged will be somewhat lower,
perhap pound 7% depending on the rate at which the bonds for the project are sold. The following
table indicates your approximate annual payment at an interest rate of 8%:
Annual Annual Total Equivalent
Principal Interest Annual Monthly
Pavment Pavment Pavment Pavment
Year 1 $930 $1,395*$2,325 $194
Year 2 930 1,042 1,972 164
Years 930 967 1,897 158
Year 4 930 893 1,823 152
Year 5 930 818 1,748 146
Year 6 930 744 1,674 140
Year 7 930 670 1,600 133
Year 8 930 595 1,525 127
Year 9 930 521 1,451 121
Year 10 930 446 1,376 115
Year 11 930 372 1,302 109
Year 12 930 298 1,228 102
Year 13 930 223 1,153 96
Year 14 930 149 1,079 90
Year 15 930
$13,950
74
$9,207
1.004
$23,157
84
♦First year interest period is estimated from 10/1/97 to 12/31/98.
Additional up-front costs which will be incurred by the property owner include the following:
1. Metropolitan Council Sewer Availability Charge (SAC): S950 for 1997, subject to
typical annual increase of $50, payable to City at time of connection.
2. Connection costs: Property owner must hire a contractor to make the connection
from your residence to the sewer stub provided at your property line. This cost can
vary considerably depending on the nature of the connection (i.e. length, depth,
whether plumbing re-routing in basement is required, etc.) but may range from
$1,000 to $5,000.
3. City connection permit: $35.50
Upon connection, the property owner will no longer be charged the annual $50 septic system service
charge, but will begin paying a quarterly Municipal Sewer Charge, currently $74.50/quarter.
The City code allows up to 16 months to connect, from the date service becomes available.
Properties wth failing septic systems will be required to connect as soon as service is available.
CITYofORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ______
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE
NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB
SANITARY SEWER ASSESSMENT ROLL
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met
and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement of sanitary
sewer in the North Long Lake/Long Lake Couittry Club area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota:
1.Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is
hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein,
and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed
improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it.
2.Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15
years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January
1998 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the adoption of this
assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire
assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1997. To each subsequent
installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments.
3.The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the
assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with
interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be
charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this
resolution; and he may, at anytime thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of
the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which
such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be
charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. Partial prepayment may be
allowed in accordance with ordinances which are existing or which the City may choose to
adopt in the future.
Page 1 of 2
_____________
m
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ____
4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County
Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be
collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
Adopted by the City Council of Orono this 6th day of May, 1997.
Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk
Page 2 of 2
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL
Project No.
Resolution No.
_Project Name North Lone Lake/Long Lake Country Club Sanitary Sewer Date Mnv6.1997
Resolution Date__________Municipal Code No. _________________Levy No.___________
Preoared Bv MPG ____Sheet_1 of__5________
P.l.D. No.Lot Bl.
Addition Units Assmt. Rate Name Address
26-118-23 33 0001 M&B
dcscr.
Sec. 26 1 $13,950 Anita L. Gardner 1486 Long Lake Blvd.
Long Lake. MN 55356
26-118-23 33 0002 3.4 Albee's Long Lake
Addition
1 $13,950 Troy & Catherine
Anderson
1490 Long Lake Blvd.
Long Lake, MN 55356
26-118-23 33 0004 5 Albee’s Long Lake
Addition
I $13,950 Cindy Fredrickson 1516 Long Lake Blvd.
Long Lake, MN 55356
26-118-23 33 0005 6 Albee's Long Lake
Additioi;
1 $13,950 Raymond Gordon
Johnson
1520 Long Lake Blvd.
Long Lake, MN 55356
26-118-23 33 U006 7 Albee's Long Lake
Addition
1 $13,950 Grant D. Eggenberg 1530 Long Lake Blvd.
Long Lake, MN 55356
26-118-23 33 0007 8.9 Albee's Long Lake
Addition
1 $13,950 Robin E. Crawford 1540 Long Lake Blvd.
Long Lake, MN 55356
26-118-23 33 0008 9.10 Albee's Long Lake
Addition
1 $13,950 Charles E. & Helen F.
Truman
1570 Long Lake Blvd.
Long Lake, MN 55356
26-118-23 33 0011 13,14.
15.16
Albee's Long Lake
Addition
1 $13,950 Edna H. Albec Estate
(1575 Long Lake Blvd)
c/o Nancy A. Gawron PR
920 Dakota Ave.
Long Lake, MN 55356
26-118-23 33 0012 16.17,
18
Albee's Long Lake
Addition
1 $13,950 James & Cynthia
Bigham
1545 Long Lake Blvd.
Long Lake, MN 55356
26-118-23 33 0014 19 Albee's Long Lake
Addition
1 $13,950 Bernice M. Zumbusch 1535 Long Lake Blvd.
Long Lake. MN 55356
26-118-23 33 0016 1 Johnston's Reargmt
of Albee's LL Add
1 $13,950 Gerald P. & Karla M.
Amc
940 Dakota Avenue
Long Lake, MN 55356
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLProject No.___
Resolution No.,
Interest Rate__
Project Name North Lone Lake/Lone Lake Country Club Sanitary Sewer Date May 6. 1997
__^Resolution Date___________Municipal Code No.__________________Levy No._______
___________________________^Prepared Bv MPG____________Sheet 2 of___5
f-
U''
26-118-23 33 0017 2 Johnston's Reargmt
of Albcc's J.L Add
1 $13,950 Lcch & Nancy
Gawron
920 Dakota Avenue
Long Lake, MN 55356
26-118-23 33 0018 3 Johnston's Reargmt
of A! bee's LL Add
1 $13,950 David & Lorraine
Lundberg
900 Dakota Avenue
Long Lake, MN 55356
26-118-23 33 0019 4 Johnston's Reargmt
of Albec's LL Add
1 $13,950 TJ. Harrison &
J.M. Albaugh
880 Dakota Avenue
Long Lake, MN 55356
26-118-23 33 0020 5 Johnston's Reargmt
of Albee's LL Add
1 $13,950 J. M. Benway &
K. J. Gasner
884 Dakota Avenue
Long Lake, MN 55356
26-118-23 33 0021 6 •Johnston's Reargmt
of Albcc's LL Add
I $13,950 Richard T. &
Lillian R. Freres
888 Dakota Avenue
Long Lake, MN 55356
26-118-23 33 0022 7 Johnston's Reargmt
of Albcc's LL Add
1 $13,950 Scott R. &
Julie A. Knutson
908 Dakota Avenue
Long Lake, MN 55356
26-118-23 33 0023
<
8 Johnston's Reargmt
of Albee’s LL Add
1 $13,950 Thomas A. &
Kari A. Steinke
910 Dakota Avenue
Long Lake, MN'55356
26-118-23 33 0024 9 Johnston s Reargmt
of Albec’s LL Add
1 $13,950 Thomas C. Odean 930 Dakota Avenue
Long Lake, MN 55356
26-118-23 33 0025 10,11 Johnston's Reargmt
of Albec's LL Add
1 $13,950 G. A. Olcn 950 Dakota Avenue
Long Lake, MN 55356
26-118-23 33 0026 12 Johnston's Reargmt
of Albcc's LL Add
1 $l ’3,950 Richard K. Engman 1590 Long Lake Blvd.
Long Lake, MN 55356
26-117-23 33 0027 Tr.A R.L.S. 934 1 $13,950 K.R. Vanden Brandcn 1480 Long Lake Blvd.
Long Lake, MN 55356
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLProject No.__Resolution No,, interest Rate Project Name North Lone Lake/Long Lake Country Club Sanitary Sewer Date May 6.1997_ResoIution Date__________Municipal Code No.________________^Levy No.________________________________Prepared Bv MPG___________Sheet 3 of___526-118-23 33 003C 12 Albce's Long Lake Addition 1 $13,950 Ardis J. Severtson •1586 Long Lake Blvd. Long Lake, MN 5535626-118-23 33 0031 11,12 A1 bee's Long Lake
Addition
1 $13,950 Roger W. Carlson 1580 Long Lake Blvd.
Long Lake, MN 55356
26-118-23 33 0032 Pt. of
Loti
Albce's Long Lake
Addition
1 $13,950 C.J. Blatchly & M.A.
Pullman
1600 Long Lake Blvd.
Long Lake, MN 55356
26-118-23 33 0033 Pt. of
Lot 2
Albce's Long Lake
Addition
1 $13,950 Scott B. Morrison 14510 12th Avc.N.
Plymouth, MN 55447
35-118-23 22 0001 M&B See. 35 1 $13,950 Kurtis A. Grecnlcy 1485 Long Lake Blvd.
Long Lake, MN 55356
35-118-23 22 0002 20,21 Albce's Long Lake
Addition
1 $13,950 L.W. Capron &
Marie Wendt
17505 Old Rockford Rd.
Plymouth, MN 55446
35-118-23 22 0003 21,22 Albce's Long Lake
Addition
1 $13,950 Thomas W. Cashman 1509 Long Lake Blvd.
Long Lake, MN 55356
35-118-23 22 0004 23 Aibee's Long Lake
Addition
1 $13,950 James D. Weyhe 1505 Long Lake Blvd.
Long Lake, MN 55356
35-118-23 22 0005 Tr. A R.L.S. 1370 1 $13,950 Donald W. Lund 1465 Long Lake Blvd.
Long Lake, MN 55356
k ' k*
■
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLProject No..Resolution No..Project Name North Lone Lakc/Lone Lake Country Club Sani:arv Sewer Date May 6, 1997. __Resolution Date__________Municipal Code No._________________^Levy No.______
Prepared Bv MPG Sheet 4 of
P.l.D. No.Lot BI.Addition Units Assmt. Rate Name Address
27-118-23 31 0019 1 1 Evergreen Ridge 1 $19,083 John R. &
Diane J. Maresh
2085 County Road 6
Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 34 0002 M&B See. 27 1 $13,950 Thomas W. Lane 915 Brown RoadN.
Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 34 0004 M&B Sec. 27 1 $13,950 George Johnson 879 Brown Road N.
Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 34 0005 M&B See. 27 1 $13,950 Steven G. Gray 819 Brown RoadN.
Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 42 0005 M&B Sec. 27 1 $13,950 Joseph R. Lucas 1060 Brown Road N.
Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 42 0006 1 1 Long Lake Country
Club Addition
1 $13,950 Evelyn E. Volby 1960 Lakeview Terrace
Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 42 0008 3 1 Long Lake Country
Club Addition
1 $13,950 R.J. & D. Koscioick 1900 Lakeview Terrace
Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 42 0009 4 1 Long Lake Country
Club Addition
1 $13,950 David &
Barbara J. Lohman
1860 Lakeview Terrace
Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 42 0010 5 1 Long Lake Country
Club Addition
1 $13,950 William Z. &
Lisa J. Mcmik
1840 Lakeview Terrace
Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 42 0011 6 1 Long Lake Country
Club Addition
I $13,950 Lo.Taine Owings 1830 Lakeview Terrace
Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 42 0012 7 1 Long Lake Country
Club Addition
1 $13,950 Merrill B. Swanson 1820 Lakeview Terraee
Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 42 0013 1 2 Long Lake Country
Club Addition
I $13,950 Harold F. Bower 1080 Brown Read N.
Long Lake, MN 55356
i
i i
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLProject No..Project Name North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Sanitary Sewer Date Mav6.1997
Resolution No..
Interest Rate
Resolution Date .Municipal Code No..Levy No.__
Sheet 5 of
P.I.D. No.Lot ni.Addition Units Assmt. Rate Name Address
27-118-23 42 0015 3 2 Long Lake Country 1 $13,950 Karl R. &1865 Lakeview Terrace
Club Addition Sherrilyn D. Askc Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 42 0016 4 2 Long Lake Country 1 $13,950 Janet Aske 1845 Lakeview Terrace
Club Addition Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 42 0017 5 2 Long Lake Country 1 $13,950 Keith D. &1920 Country Club Rd.
Club Addition Deborah M. Carlsten Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 42 0018 6 2 Long Lake Country 1 $13,950 Marvin J. W. Smith 1940 Country Club Rd.
Club Addition Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 42 0019 1 3 Long Lake Country 1 $13,950 Melanie Rose &1020 Brown Road N.
Club Addition Dennis Kirby Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 42 0020 2 3 Long Lake Country 1 $13,950 Patricia A. (Mondale)1965 Country Club Rd.
Club Addition Connor Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 43 0002 3 3 Long Lake Country 1 $13,950 Glenn G. & Lois E.1925 Country Club Rd.
Club Addition Fredeen Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 43 0003 4 3 Long Lake Country 1 $13,950 John L. Sundean 1803 Lakeview Terrace
Club Addition Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 43 0004 5 3
Long Lake Country 1 $13,950 Dennis C. Theis &1801 Lakeview Terrace
Club Addition Ann I. Fromell-Theis Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 43 0005 1 4 Long Lake Country 1 $13,950 Charles D. Dollar 1810 Lakeview Terrace
Club Addition Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 43 0006 2 4 Long Lake Country 1 $13,950 Grant C. &1802 Lakeview Terrace
Club Addition Patricia A. Andreason Long Lake, MN 55356
27-118-23 43 0007 3 4 Long Lake Country I $13,950 David L. &1800 Lakeview Terrace
Club Addition Christine L. Gorder Long Lake, MN 55356
ij
GITYof ORONO
Municipal Offices
Streat Address:
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
George Johnson
879 Brown Road North
Long Lake, Minnesota 55356
Dear Mr. Johnson:
In response to your request that your property be included in the proposed North Long
Lake/Long Lake Country Club sewer project, the City Council has indicated that your property may
be conditionally included. The conditions of your inclusion are as follows:
1.
2.
You must legally combine your homestead lot with your secondary lot. It has been
the city's policy that providing sewer to an area will not increase the allowed density.
The combined acreage of your two parcels is 3.66 acres, which does not meet the 2
acre density guidelines for this area of the city. Also, without sewer it would be
necessary to combine your two parcels to provide a site for replacement of your
current septic system. Based on these factors, the City Council has determined sewer
scr\dcc will be provided only if your homestead lot is combined with your secondary
adjacent lot.
Your property will be assessed at the reduced assessment amount of $13,950 which
is the level established for the majority of properties within the sewer project area.
If you have questions regarding the conditions of your inclusion in the sew’er project, please
call me.
Sincerely,
Ronald J. Moorse
City Administrator
Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510
GlTYofORONO
Municipal Offices
Street Address:
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
April 18,1997
Dr. John Maresh
2085 Sixth Avenue North
Long Lake, MN 55356
Re: Municipal Sewer
Dear Dr. Maresh:
In response to your request that your property be included in the proposed North Long Lake/Long
Lake Country Club sewer project, the City Council has indicated to staff that your property may be
conditionally included. The conditions on your inclusion are as follows:
1.You must legally combine your homestead lot with the lot that abuts Brown
Road. Your homestead property as it currently exists does not meet the 'adjacency'
criterion established by the City based on Met Council requirements for sewering of
properties outside the MUSA boundary. The Met Council allowed the City up to 50
connections for existing homes outside the MUSA line. Because your homestead lot
is separated from the proposed sewer line by your vacant lot, the property you wish
to serve is not adjacent to the sewer. The most likely way of creating such adjacency
is by combining your two lots.
2. Your property will be assessed at the full rate of $19,083.
Please contact me or City Administrator Ron Moorse at 473-7357 if you have any questions.
Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator
Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510
j
^ J Bonestroo
Rosene
■ Anderlik &
|\J I Associates
Engineers & Architects
Bonestroo, Rosene. AnderUk and Associates. Inc. is an Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer
Principals' Otto G. Bonestroo. RE • Joseph C. Anderlik. PE. • Marvin L. Sorv.i»a. PE •
Richard E Turner. PE. • Glenn R Cook. RE • Thomas E. Noyes. PE • Robert G Schunicht. PE •
Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene. PE and Susan M Eberlm. C PA Senior Consultants
Associate Principals Howard A Sanford. PE • Keith A. Gordon. PE. • Robert R. Pfeffcrie. RE. •
Richard W Foster. PE. • David O Loskoia. PE • Robert C Russek. AI A. • Mark A. Hansen. PE •
Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kennein P Anderson. PE. • Mark R. Rolfs. PE •
Sidney R Williamson. PE,. L S. • Robert F. Kotsmith
Offices St Paul. Rochester, Wiilmar and St Cloud. MN • Mcquon. Wl
April 28. 1997
Mr. Ron Moorse
City of Orono
PO Box 66
Crystal Bay MN 55323-0066
RECEIVED
APR 3 01997
CITY OF ORONO
Ke:NLL/LLCC Sanitary Sewer and Orono Ice Arena Sewer and Water Service
File No. 13988
Dear Ron.
We have reviewed the bid tabulation for the low bidder (Barbarossa and Sons, Inc.) on the above-mentioned
project. The following summary table is presented to enable comparisons between the Feasibility Report and
the low bid amount and for assessment purposes.
North Long Lake / Long Lake Country Club Sanitary Sewer
Estimate Bid .No. Units Proposed A
Trunk Costs 414.157 212,951 54 $3944
Lateral Costs 635.398 726.797 54 13,459
Total 1,049,555 939,748 $17,403
Alternate 1 16.552 1 $20,496
Total 956,300
Orono Ice Arena Sewer and Water Main
Estimate Bid
Sanitary 63,107 33,802
Water 39,888 29.923
Total 102.995 63,725
Both the estimate and bid totals include a 5% contingency, 159t allowance for design, inspection, legal and
administrative costs, and a 5% allowance for capitalized interest and bonding costs during construction.
Alternate 1 is for labor and materials to extend sanitary service to the Maresh property. The proposed
assessment for Maresh includes the Trunk Fee.
Yours very truly,
BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC.
/arr/
Tom Kellogg
Cc: Greg Gappa
2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 ■ 612-636-4600
NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB SEWER PROJECT
ASSESSMENT HEARING
TUESDAY, MAY 6,1997 7:00 P.M.
ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Mayor Opens the Hearing
Summary of Project Need
Summary of Project Design
Summary of Project Benefit
Summary of Assessment Financing
Public Comment
7. Closing of Hearing
8, Council Consideration of Adoption of Assessment Resolution
9. Adjournment
Cljy OF ORONO
NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED
ASSESSMENT
Notice IS hereby given ma: the C'ty
Counol will hold ’ hearing on Tuesday. May
6. 1997 at 7:00 p.m m the Orono Council
Chambers, 2780 KeHey Parkway to consider
a''d pass upon the proposed assessment for
me North Long Lake Long Lake Country Club
sanitary sewer trunk and lateral
improvement. The following is me area
proposed to be assessed
A "North Long La^e’area
1. Those pa'ts of Lots i and 2. Atbee s
Long Lake Addiion ly ng Nom o' me NO'in
Line of Johnston s Rea*rar'ge'"‘ent o^ A see's
Long Lake Acd<l on
2 Lots 1 thfj i2 inc'usive. Johnston's
Rearrangement o* A'oee's Lo^'g Leke
Acciion.
3 Lots 3 thru 23 mctus ve. A’bee's Long
1.1*0 Addit on irc'wd ng vacated r.ghts of-
wiy
4 Tract A. Registered Lar^d Survey No
934
5 Tract A. Reg stered Land Survey No
1379
6 That part of the east 110 feet of me
west 785 feet of me Southwest Quarter of
Section 26. Township il8 North. Range 23
West lying soum of the westerly extension of
me North line of Lot 2. Auditor 's Subdivs on
No 291 and north of the south 190 feet
thereof, also the east 60 fee: of the west 735
feet of the north i5 feet of me south 190 feet
of said Southwest Quarter
7. The east 60 feet of the west 735 feet
of the south 175 feet of me Southwest
Quarter of SeCi nn 26 Township 118 North.
Range 23 West
8. Commenong at U'e intersection of the
North line of Governmen Lot 1. Section 35.
Township 118 North. Ran je 23 West and me
East line of Aioee’s Lcng Lake Addition
thence south along sad E.ist line to the shore
of Long Lake, thence sc utheasterly along
sad shore to an intersection with a line
parallel with and 140 feet f ast from the East
line of Registered Land Purvey No 934
thence northwesterly along sad Southerly
line 10 the North line of Gcverrment Lot 1
thence west to me point of heginrung
•
B long Lake County Ciub“ area
1 The fo'iowmg Lots m Long Lake
Country Club Addition
Lots 1 thru 7 inclusive. B-OC<x 1
Lots 1 thru 6 inclusive. Block 2
Lots 1 thru 5 ir'dus ve B'ock 3
Lots 1 thru 3 rciuS ve. B OCk 4
2 The no'tn 200 feet of me south
1752 04 feet of me west 430 feet of the
Soumeast Quarter. Section 27. Township 118
North. Range 23 West
3 Lots 1 and 2. Evergreen R,dge
4 The north 235 25 feet o^ me south 838
feet of the east 990 feet of me Southeast
Quarter. Sect or* 27. Towr'snip 118 North.
Range 23 West.
5 The north i98 feet of the soum 602.75
feet of the east 253 feet of the Southeast
Quarter of «he Southwest Quarter. Section
27. Township 118 North. Range 23 West
Affidavit of Publication
Stale of Minnesota, County of Hennepift^
feet
Quarter of Secuon 27
Rang? 23 West
Bill Holm, being duly sworn on that
:er ot Secuon 27. Township 118 North, an authorized aoent and emolovee of the mibiichpr ^
'ihe proposed assessment roll is on file
an authorized agent and employee of the publisher ^
of the newspaper known as ThlS^ER, Sot!(
me pruposea asbessmem lun la wn •"» 4 , # n •
fc public inspection at the City Clerk's office ^inri6S0l3, Eind nSS (ull kflOWlSClQS^^K^B (3
me total amount of the proposed
assessment is $787,782 Written or oral
objections Will be considered at the meeting.
No appeal may bo taken as to me amount of
an assessment unless a
r hich are stated below:
9 dniuuiu I
o»,«»on.. 1.1.9 ».m ih. ciS wl,»'"™ '■) newspaper has complied with all Ihe
equlremems constituting qualilicalions as a
newspaper, as provided by Minnesota
adiourned meeting uDor. such further nonce Statute 331 A.02, 331A.07, and Other aoDlicable
to the af'ected prooerty owners as it deems
aCv saDd JWS, 3S 3mGnu6u.
I* an assessment is contested or there is
5.) The printed-----Prcnnsed
1 The City will present its case first by
calling witnesses who may testify by narrauve
or by examination, and by me introduction of
exhibits After each witness has testified, the
contesting party will be allowed to ask
questions This procedure will be reoeated
With each witness until neither sioe has
further questions
2 After me City has presented all ns
ev'Oence ’ne objector may call witnesses or
present sucn test-mony as the objector
desires The same procedure for questioning
of the City's witnesses will be followed with
me ob;ector's witnesses
3 The oD,ec!or may be represented by
counsel
4 Minnesota rules of evidence will not
be strictly applied, however, they may be
considered and argued to the Cour'C'l as to
the we ght of lems of e. donee or testimony
presented to the Council
5 The enbre proceeo.ngs w.ii oe tape-
recorded
6 At me dose of presentation of
evidence, the ojecior may make a final
presentation to the Cour^cil based on the
evidence and me law No new evidence may
be presented at this pomi
An owner may appeal an assessment to
district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Section 42908iby serving not'ce of the
appeal upon the Mayor or City C'erk wilhm 30
days after the adoption of the assessment
and filing such notice with me district court
Within ten days after service upon the Mayor
or City Clerk
Hearing
vhich is attached was cut from the columns of said
lewspaper, and was printed and published once
lach week for__2 successive weeks:
It was first published Monday,
the 19 daynf April______ IQ 97
and was thereafter printed and published every
Monday, to and including Monday,
the—26 — (Jayof April______1 g 97 ;
7 iUthorized Agent
lubscribed and sworn to me on this
Owners of homestead property who are
65 years or older may apply for a deferment
of me special assessment i» they meet ihe 2 6 CJ3V Of__AELti-l
criteria set forth in City Council Resolut on
92864
By Order of the C*ry Counol
Dorothy M. Halim
. City Clerk /•
,i9az
(Published m The Laker and Pioneer
April 19 and Apni 26. 1997)
-.............. Nulai y ja yblic
I'miSTl HOLM
NO - * ^UBUC-IMC30TA
MV COMM EXPIRES 1^4000
Rate Informaiidh
(1) Lowest classified rale paid by commercial users
lor comparable space: $12.20 per irKh.
(2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $12.20.
(3) Rale actually charged lor above matter: $7.00 per inch.
Each additional successive week: $5.05.
J
• I i
I
; '
• - •
CITY OF ORONO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT #6
n. Analysis of need
A. Existing Septic Systems Inventory and Analysis
Overview of the Problem
Of approximately 1,1 JO septic systems in Orono, 75% make use of drainfield
trenches or beds ranging in depth from 1' to 3' below the natural ground surface.
Based on localized testing and review of the soil survey, it is estimated that from
one-half to two thirds of these systems do not meet the required 3' separation from
seasonal zones of saturation. By defuiition, these systems are nonconforming
according to current state and local codes, and must be upgraded.
In most cases, upgrading will require replacement of a trench or bed system with
a mound system at a cost of approximately $8,000 to $10,000 per unit. This cost
of replacing septic systems approaches the cost of installing municipal sewer in
Orono.
When faced with the prospect of wholesale septic system replacement, the City
chose to place a moratorium on system replacement and study whether sewer
installation is more appropriate than system upgrades for specific areas or
neighborhoods. City staff subsequently Identified ten existing residential
neighborhoods of high density or close proximity to lakeshore. These areas were
analyzed to determine whether they have the capability of repairing/replacing septic
systems. Current system conditions were analyzed, and cost estimates for
municipal sewer were developed.
None of these ten areas are currently within the MUSA. Six of ten were originally
identified in Orono’s 1980 Comprehensive Plan as "Rural Housing Clusters"
developed at densities greater than the 1-per 2 acre standard. It was noted in the
1980 plan that these neighborhoods were not at that time experiencing septic
problems but would be monitored. While the incidence of failure has not increased
in these neighborhoods, new definitions of "non-conforming systems" and the
requirement to upgrade such systems has become a serious concern.
"Nonconforming" Versus "Failing" Systems.
In 1989, MPCA Rules Chapter 7080 were revised to include in the definition of
nonconforming systems, "systems with less than 3' of unsaturated soil or. sand
between the distribution device and the limiting soil characteristics". This
regulation defines limiting soil characteristics as "those soil characteristics which
preclude the installation of a standard system, including evidence of water toble".
Water table is defined as "the highest elevation m the soil where all voids are filled
with water, as evidenced by presence of water or soil mottling or other
information".
In the State of Minnesota, soil mottling has become the key factor in determining
the highest level of seasonal saturation in the soil. In Orono's loam and clay loam
soils, soil mottling and seasonal saturation are commonly found from 2' to 5' below
the ground surface. In order to meet the 3' separation requirement, a majority of
new septic systems are mounds, which maintain the 3' separation.
The use of soil mottling for determining seasonal saturation is subjective at best,
but is the only practical method identified by the State for determining seasonal
saturation. However, in some years samration may not occur at the mottling level,
and in other years saturation may occur at the mottling level for only a few days,
weeks or months in a given year. The State has taken the position that even though
the system might be too close to the water table for a short period during any given
year, that system is not conforming.
Very few septic systems in Orono are failing at any given time, perhaps 3-5% or
1 in 25. However, as many as 500-600 of the 1150 existing systems are estimated
as fitting the definition of "non-conforming". While these may treat sewage quite
adequately most of the time, during some periods they may not.
Evaluation Methods.
Each neighborhood was evaluated in terms of soil and water conditions, proximity
to lakeshore or other water bodies, and lot sizes. Within each neighborhood,
individual systems were analyzed to determine system type (trench, mound, bed
or cesspool), system condition (working, marginal or failing), conformity with 3'
separation requirement (conforming or nonconforming), whether the system is in
the designated "Shoreland" district, and whether or not an alternate drainfield site
is available.
Note that in analyzing system conditions, systems exhibiting no surface discharge
and generally in working order were considered as "working"; systems obviously
discharging to the surface were considered as "failing"; and systems with a
drainfield area samrated but not dischargmg were considered as "marginal". It is,
therefore, possible and quite conunon to have a system that is working but is still
non-conforming.
SUMMARY OF SYSTEMS BY NEIGHBORHOOD
A
NEIGHPORHOOD OR
SITE DESIGNATION
Existing HomesVacant Lots•TrenchMoundBedCesspoolWorkingMarginalFailingConformingNon-ConformingConformity not DeterminedNet Dry Area in Lots • • (ac)Avg. Lot Size (ac)Gross ac in area inci roads, wetlands% of all w/no alternate sites available% of ail non-conf/marg/fail w/no alt site available% of Lots in ShorelandLong Lake C. C.20 0 17 3 0 0 19 0 1 4 16 0 21.2 1.06 28.9 30%10%
Webber Hills 37 0 31 5 1 0 34 2 1 9 16 12*39.9 1.08 57.7 32%62%
East Long Lake 10 0 8 1 1 0 7 1 2 3 6 1 19.3 1.75 24.1 20%90%
Edgewood Hills 8 2 7 0 1 0 6 0 2 1 0 7 18.8 1.88 20.0 25% 0%
r North Long Lake 30 1 17 3 9 1 23 5 2 8 21 !•22.7 0.73 26.1 77%100%
Bayridge/Hartwood 16 0 15 1 0 0
15 0 1 7 9 0 24.5 1.53 34.8 13% 100%
Orono Orchards 23 0 21 1 1
0 15 2 6 6 6 11 28.4 1.23 42.8 52%0%
Fox Ridge 9 0 7 0 2 0 7 2 0 3 0 6 11.1 1.23 17.4 33% 33%
Foxhill 22 1 17 2 3 0 21 1 0 14 8 0 32.7 1.42 52.8 9% 100%
Brackett's Pt 14 0
11 2 0 1 14 0 0 7 7
0 33.8 2.6 35.1 29%100%
TOTALS 189 4 151 18 18 2 161 13 15 62 89 38 252.4 1.31 340.7 36%18%62%
80%85%47%
•68 of
189
34 of
189
119 of
193
Dillman Site 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0
Orono Schools inci
Hockey Site 54.0 —56.1 —mm 70%
308.4 398.5
* includes 'Alternative' Systems
••Excludes City-designated wetlands and road right-of-ways
Tabic 2
Summary of Results/Priorilizatibn
Evaluation of the accumulated data suggests that some neighborhoods are more
critical than others in terms of ability to continue using septic systems on a long
term basis. Further, the City Council has expressed a concern that the City is not
in a position to assist in the funding of sewer projects to serve all ten neighborhoods
at this time, but may be able to share in the cost if the projects are scheduled over
a ten to twenty year period. As a result, each neighborhood was Tanked in order
of priority as to the need for an alternative to septic systems.
Each neighborhood was ranked on a scale from 1 to 5 (5 being the greatest need
for sewer) in regards toi a) incidence of failing systems; b) magnitude of
nonconformities; c) availability of future sites for all homes; d) availability of
future sites for homes with failing systems; e) availability of future sites for homes
with nonconforming systems; and f) shoreland impact. In that study, marginal and
failing systems were both treated as failing systems.
This analysis resulted in a numerical rating for each neighborhood, and neighbor
hoods were then prioritized by ranking into areas of high, medium and low priority
for installation of municipal sewer, as follows:
HIGH PRIORITY
North Long Lake
Long Lake Country
Club Addition
Orono Orchards
MEDIUM PRIORITY
Fox Ridge
East Long Lake
Webber Hills
LOW PRIORITY
Bay Ridge
Edgewood Hills
Bracketts Point
Fox Hill
The City Council in November 1994 concluded that although the Long Lake
Country Club Addition had a medium ranking, it was a link in bringing sewer to
the highest priority area. North Long Lake, and therefore the North Long
Lake/Long Lake Country Club area should be placed on a highest priority for
sewer installation in the near future. The Council further concluded that Orono
Orchards is a slightly lower priority, but sewer construction in that neighborhood
would also appear to be prudent as soon as the North Long Lake/Long Lake
Country Club project is complete.
The remaining seven neighborhoods were not placed on a specific time frame for
sewer. However, the City Council suggested if any of those neighborhoods
petition for sewer and agree to pay the entire cost of installation, the City will
proceed with those projects.
The Council further directed that the necessary MUSA amendment application
process be commenced so that if any of these neighborhoods request sewer, the
City will be able to accommodate them.
It should be noted that the average lot size within the areas to be included in the
MUSA is 1.3 acres, as compared to an average lot size of 2 to 3 acres for all
new residential development occurring in unsewered areas of Orono since 1975.
Further, it should be noted that of 193 units proposed, only 4 units would be
allocated to vacant lots. It haf been and continues to be the City's position that
sewering these neighborhoods shall not result in provision of capacity for new
development .
B. Alternatives Considered
1. Identification of Alternatives - A number of alternatives to the continued
use of standard on-site sewage treatment systems were considered,
including installation of municipal sewers. The alternatives included:
a. Demolition. Removal of homes that have neither acceptable on-site
systems nor available alternate drainfield sites.
b. "Alternative Systems" and "Experimental Systems" which might
include:
O Confo rming design/substandard capacity systems on lots with
minimal space, using holding tanks as an overflow mode.
O Surface discharge systems (home plants).
O Aerobic tank systems with reduced capacity conforming
drainfields.
c. Holding tanks.
d. STEP systems (Sewage Tank/Effluent Pump) - each home has a
septic tank with effluent pump discharging to a shallow small
diameter force-main leading to City sewer system.
e. Neighborhood collector system with community drainfield.
f. Enforced flow reductions (retro-fit v/ith low water use fixtures).
1
i
2. Analysis of Alternatives
a. Demolition
- High cost of acquisition is not affordable to City.
- Negative impact on existing neighborhood.
- With high percentage of homes in some areas not having
alternate sites, entire neighborhood would be subject to
demolition.
- Removal of "every other house", for instance, does not
likely yield suitable drainfield sites for those remaining.
- In older neighborhoods, reduces already-limited stock of
affordable housing.
- For the above reasons, demolition of selected homes in an
existing neighborhood is not considered as a viable alternative.
b. "Altemative/Experimental" Systems
i. Surface Discharge Systems
- Typically a packaged home-use individual treatment
plant.
- Surface discharge not approved in Minnesota.
- Disposal of effluent in winter is a severe problem, may
also be a problem in summer.
- High individual system cost.
- Ongoing individual plant maintenance required.
ii. Aerobic Tank Systems
- Claim to provide adequate treatment to allow drainfield
size reduction.
- To date, MPCA/UM have not fully approved drainfield
size reduction concept.
- Drainfield must still meet the 3-foot separation
requirement, which cannot be met on many properties
except by standard mound sytem technology.
- Ongoing maintenance required.
iii. Conforming design/substandard capacity/holding tank
- Concept is to use substandard capacity but conforming-
location drainfield to its maximum capacity, then
overflow into a holding tank (for re-entry to drainfield
in off-peak hours, or for hauling away).
- Concept assumes a small conforming trench drainfield
can be constructed, which is not the case on many sites;
not a viable system when drainfield is a mound.
- This has been used as a short-term retro-fit in Orono
(by adding holding tank to existing system) in
developed ares where no other options exist or until
sewer is available, but is not a long-term solution.
None of the above methods are considered as viable alternatives
to sewer for the reasons noted.
• -i
1
c. Holding Tanks
- Technically feasible for most sites.
- Permanent maintenance requirement can become a problem and
a burden.
- High maintenance cost leads to restricted lifestyles not
acceptable to most residents.
- Estimated costs (1994 data):
- Holding tank installation $2,280
- Regular maintenance (pumpouts) $5,000/year*
*assumes 3 occupants x 75 gpd x 365 days x $120/pumpout
2,000 gal. per pumpout
d. STEP System
- Requires continued maintenance of indivi lual septic tanks.
- With each house having a pump to maintain, costs are ongoing.
- This is a low front-end cost alternative to standard sewers, but
may create permanent maintenance headaches.
- Still requires hydraulic capacity in local sewer system.
e. Neighborhood collector system with community drainfield
- Sensitive to soil/water table conditions.
- Ongoing maintenance required (may be individual tanks or
community tank).
- Need future expansion area available as safety factor.
- High cost of site acquisition.
- Failure risk may be high, replacement cost expensive.
- Unlikely that technically suitable sites can be located due to
high water tables.
- Community drainfields risk groundwater mounding and
resultant inadequate treatment.
- Collection system cost is equivalent to cost of municipal sewer
collector system; the cost of community drainfield
construction is likely to exceed the cost of force main to
existing sewer system.
f. Flow reductions
- Cost to retrofit each residence with low-flow fixtures is
variable.
- Benefits will be variable from household to household.
- Use of fixtures (or their eventual removal due to frustration)
is impossible to monitor).
- Flow reductions will not solve the problem of lack of 3-foot
separation between the seasonal water table and the bottom of
the treatment system.
- While applying flow reduction technology to individual homes
might result in 20-50% reductions in sewage volumes, and
might even restore some failing (discharging) systems to a
hydraulically functional condition, treatment may still be
inadequate.
; •
I
i
t ^ h 3. Conclusions
The City has reviewed and considered alternative methods of sewage treatment
and disposal prior to construction of each and every municipal sewer project in
the last 15 years.
None of the identified alternatives provides a sewage treatment system with the
permanence of municipal sewer. The factors considered include:
-Technical feasibility/site availability
-Long term reliability
-Individual maintenance requirements
-City maintenance requirements
-Technical limitations
-Public acceptance
-Cost
-Financial and environmental risk
For existing neighborhoods adjacent to lakes, and for those neighborhoods
historically developed with lot sizes less than the 2 acres of dry buildable land
needed to support septic systems on a long term basis, municipal sewers are the
preferred method of sewage disposal.
i
INFORMATION
ITEMS
COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL MEETINQ
MAY 6 1997
k 4 ,
f CirVOFORONO
OF
"I
I
1
'1
TO:
FROM!
DATE:
Mayor and City Council
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
April 30,1997
^ ■
SUBJECT: Facilitating Redevelopment in the Navarre Area--Tax Increment Financing
The Culvers restaurant development project in Navarre, and the planned redevelopment of the
adjacent church property, have generated discussion regarding whether those projects will serve as
a catalyst for a significant redevelopment effort, or at least a significant facelift effort, for the
Navarre commercial area.
Although the first step in any significant redevelopment process is to develop a consensus regarding
a vision or plan for the area, one of the first questions always asked is how any redevelopment would
be funded. Commercial redevelopment is very difficult to accomplish and generally requires public
funding —often a substantial level of public funding. Although there are grant programs available,
successful grant applications generally include leveraging of substantial private dollars and ciy
dollars.
Orono does not have funding available or plamied to provide significant assistance to a
redevelopment effort in Navarre. Also, looking into future years the city will need to provide
funding for other major items such as storm water improvement projects, street improvement
projects, and sewer projects. Funding for any new expenditures will need to come from the city tax
levy unless other sources are found.
One funding source that is specific to redevelopment projects is Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Tax
Increment Financing enables a city to use ''incremental" (additional) taxes generated by
redevelopment projects in a designated district to provide financial assistance to facilitate
redevelopment in the designated district. For example, if a parcel with an existing building valued
at $200,000 is redeveloped with a building valued at $1,200,000, the property taxes related to the
additional $1,000,000 of valuation, for all taxing jurisdictions (i.e. city, county and school district)
would remain in the TIF district. These funds would then be available to facilitate both the specific
development occurring on the parcel and other redevelopment in the district.
A TIF district can include both commercial redevelopment areas and areas of housing in need of
redevelopment or rehabilitation. It is then possible to use the additional taxes generated by
commercial redevelopment to assist the redevelopment or rehabilitation of housing.
If the City Council determines Tax Increment Financing may be worth exploring, now would be a
very opportune time to set up a Tax Increment Financing district in the Navarre area. The reason
for this is that the proposal for the church property redevelopment may be brought to the Planning
Commission within a fairly short time period. Also, the Rick's Super Valu expansion may proceed
at any time. If the TIF district is set up before construction proceeds on these projects, the additional
V'.
taxes generated by these two projects would remain in the district and would be available for use to
facilitate redevelopment in the district.
It is important the Council has an opportunity to obtain as much information as possible about Tax
Increment Financing and how it could be used in Navarre. Staff has had preliminary discussions
with Sid Inman who is the Tax Increment Financing expert with Ehlers Associates, the city's bond
consultant. He is available to meet with the Council to explain and clarify Tax Increment Financing
at either a Council meeting or a work session. At this time, I am planning to have Mr. Inman attend
the May 12 Council meeting. If any member of the Council would rather discuss Tax Increment
Financing in a work session format please let me know.
5
r
H
i!
V-
I' ^
r* ■
.k*. —r
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:
DATE:
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
May 2, 1997
SUBJECT: North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Sewer Project Bids and Assessments
The bids for the North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club sewer project have been received and
reviewed. The low bid is approximately $93,000 under the Engineer's estimate. Although this is
good news for the city, the property owners in the project may request that this lower project cost
be reflected in lower assessment amounts. In considering this issue, it is important the Council take
into account several items.
1.The proposed assessment amount was based on a determination of the amount of benefit
provided to the properties rather than on a specific portion or percentage of the project cost.
Although the project cost has been reduced, this has not reduced the amount of benefit.
2.The assessment amounts were substantially reduced from the actual project cost to reflect
the level of benefit to the properties in order to avoid assessment appeals and the costs of the
appeal process both to the city and to the property owners. If the Council decides to reduce
the assessments based on the lower bid costs, it should do so only if all property owners
agree not to appeal the assessment amounts.
J.The project costs included in the low bid amount do not include the cost of easements needed
for the project. In past projects, the city has relied on the property owners to provide
easements at no cost to the city. If the Council decides to reduce the assessments it should
do so only if all property owners agree to provide all necessary easements at no cost to the
city.
1
i
Peviowing
Hislory
9/94 11/95
Assessing
\ Needs
11/95 11/96
Developing ^
A Assumptions ^
11/96 1/97
Seeking
Solutions .
12/96 - 5/97
Selecting ^
Solution j
5/97 - Foll/97
y//
Bond Referendum Update Community Meeting on May 12
It is time for you to help shape what Orono's school bond referendum will look
like by coming to a community-wide meeting on Monday, May 12 at 7:30pm in
the Orono Middie School cafeteria. The Board of Education is analyzing six
bond referendum options by getting comments and suggestions from the
community. The options address the space needs for adequate educational
programs for our students, with a major focus on the space needs of our Middle
School students. All options represent conservative ways to meet our needs.
They range from erecting temporary portabies to remodeling or building a new
school and the prices vary from $6,090,000 to $19,800,000.
The options preferred by 60 community members at a March 6 meeting and by
the Board at its April 1 workshop includes building a new middle school with a
modest remodeiing of other schools. The cost of this option is $ 17,250.000.
However, the Board feels that the community's suggestions on all six options,
not just the one that is preferred at this time, will help in designing a better final
plan. The community gave opinions as to each options during eight meetings
held throughout April.
Although much work has already been completed, much work still remains
and your opinions are important to us. Please come to the meeting on May
12. If you do not have a copy of the options from the Aprii community meet
ings, you may pick up a copy in the District Office.
Using the community's suggestions, the Board wiii decide late in May on a final
plan. From then until fall, the architect, community members and staff mem
bers wiii further refine the plan and determine the exact cost. It Is anticipated
that a bond referendum election wiii be held in the fall of 1997.
'
• V ••
/; j
SEkli* V ^ «
I ••
%
i \>
; r
V
Some of the 60+ community members working on solutions for Orono
Schools ot the Mo^ch 6 meeting
05/02/97 FRI 15:50 FAX 612 347 7077 FREDRIKSON & BYRON @00
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
Attorneys At Law
1100 Internationiil Ccn(re
9Q0 Second Avcn»e South
Minneapoli5, MN 55402*.'^I^07
(612) 347-7000
hAX (612) 347-7077
Direct Dial No.
(612) 347-7032
bergUS&edlaw.com
ILS. MAll. AND FACSTMILE 473-0510
May 2,1997
Mr. Ronald Moorsc
City Administrator
City ofOrono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
RE: Proposed Assessment for Municipal Sewer Service (North Long Lake/Long Lake
Country Club Sewer Improvement Project)
Dear Mr. Moorse:
My office represents Troy and Catherine Anderson, tlie owners of the property at 1490 Long
Lake Boulevard. The purpose of this letter is to serve as an objection to the assessment of the
Anderson’s property for the above referenced project.
The Andersons have met and discussed the proposed project with representatives of the City of
Orono on several occasions. I have previously written to the City of Orono on their behalf and
you will find enclosed a copy of my most recent letter (October 25, 1995). Based upon the due
diligence investigation that we have conducted, it would be legally impermissable for the City of
Orono to assess the Anderson’s properly for this project in the manner proposed by the City.
The Anderson’s on-site system is a functioning, conforming, on-site system, constructed at
considerable expense to the Andersons in 1993 following assurances to the Andersons by the
City of Orono that municipal sewer service would not become available for at least ten (10) to
fifteen (15) years. Our own experts have provided us with evidence that there is virtually no
benefit that would accrue to the Anderson’s property on the basis of having municipal sewer
service made available.
If the City proceeds with the proposed assessment of the Anderson’s property, the Andersons
will have no choice but to contest that assessment in accordance with applicable law. I would
f
05/02/97 FRI 15:50 FAX 612 347 7077 FREDRIKSON & BYRON
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, RA.
Attorne7J At Law
May 2.1997
Page 2
1 will look forward to talking to you about this matter.
LJB/vw
cc: Troy and Catherine Anderson
2011434-1
@001
I
vlj
p 4
05/02/97-riW• • H • «
FRI 15:50 FAX 612 347 7077 @004
m
FREDRIKSON & BITION■ ■.....Vr^/f'^r.
. I.
• .*•• »..*••. •■ ■ •
• •*. % ,.•
•I •/ !
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
Attorneys At Law
IlOU International Centre
900 .Second Afettue South
MinneapoUs. MN 55402-3i<J7
(C.I2) 147-7000
Fax (612) 147-7077
Direct Dial No.
(612) 347-7052
October 26, 1995
Mr. Ron Moorse
City Manager
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066
Re: Proposed extension of the MUSA line and accompanying sewer service project
serving the residents of the North Long Lake area of the City of Orono
Dear Mr. Moorsc:
My office represents Troy and Catherine Anderson, the owners of the property at 1490 Long
Lake Boulevard. Tn 1993, the City directed the Andersens to replace their existing on-site
septic system with a new system. The Andersens made inquiry of the City regarding the
possibility that municipal sewer service would become available to this part of the City.
They were assured that there was little, if any, likelihood that municipal sewer service would
become available within the next ten to i'fleen year period. In reliance upon that
representation, the Andersens constructed an expensive on-site septic system that conformed
to all applicable laws and codes.
The system in question functions efficiently and well and is expected to do so during its
useful life. Therefore, if municipal sewer service is made available to my clients, my clients
will derive no benefit from that service. Informal inquiry has been made of appraisers. We
have been assured that with a conforming and functioning on-site sewer system, any increase
in value to the properly derived from municipal sewer service being made available to my
clients’ property would be nominal. Under Minnesota law, my client may not be assessed
for such a project beyond the benefit derived by my clients’ property.
Wc have received a Petition being circulated by the residents of the North Long Lake area of
the City of Orono. Paragraph 4 of that Petition states: "Residents who have replaced their
septic systems within five years before the time that the city sewer is installed will receive
more favorable payment terms, such as deferral of the assessment for a period of lime."
* • • -t
ii
05/02/97 rai 15:51 FAX 612 347 7077 FREDRIKSON & BlCRpN
. • fK»
. -..'f :n . (
@003
FREDRIKSON & BYRON. RA.
Accorntf^f Ac Uiut
Mr. Ron Moorse
October 26, 1995
Page 2
The purpose of this letter is to make it clear that such treatment would not be acceptable to
my clients and is, in fact, contrary to applicable law. Under no circumstances will my
clients willingly agree to pay any specif assessments against their property in excess of the
benefit to the property from the proposed improvement.
I would like to have the opportunity to discuss this matter with you or with the City’s
attorney. My clients have authorized my firm to take appropriate action in the event that the
City attempts to assess their property beyond the benefit received by the property from the
project in question.
I would appreciate it if you would call me or have the City’s attorney call me after you have
had an opportunity to review and consider this letter. Thank you for your cooperation.
cc: Troy and Catherine Anderson
•f.
1520 Long Lake Blvd.
Orono. MN 55356
May 2. 1997
City of Orono Municipal Offices
2750 Kelly Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
received
M4y 5 /99;
CITyoFOHOf/o
Dear Friends,
I hereby appeal the assessment on my property (PINS No. 26-118-23 33 0005)
relative to the propos ’d sewer project for North Long Lake.
NONE of the five factors listed the General Information sheet apply to mv
property.
1. My septic system was constructed in 1985, meeting the standards required.
This was one of the reasons 1 purchased the home in June 1994, knowing the
well and septic system were new and up to standards. 1 was simply not made
aware of any possible upcoming sewer project when I purchased my home.
Supposedly, my system is inspected annually and I have never been informed
that it fEdls to meet requirements. In fact 1 have never seen an inspector or
received a report of any kind.
2. By no measurement would the proposed sewer system benefit me or save me
money. In fact, the additional cosi ^ voujd force me to sell my home at
great personal loss at a time in rr; . .*'ien it would hit me in such a way
that I would never financially recover. Surely it is not your intention as city
government to devastate a homeowner ’s flnancicd life.
3. 1 am simply unable to pay the $13,950 estimated cost. The monthly
payments for the sewer project, let alone the Metro Council Sewer Avadlabllity
chcirges, connection costs, and new additional Municipal Sewer Charge of
$74.50 a quarter. By the way, those little 50 cent numbers on the end of city
charges reveal clearly revead the arbitraiy nature by which they are concocted.
4. The “Metro Council Sewer Availability” charges are way out of line,
preposterous
5. “Connection ” estimates are way out of line.
6. In addition to the above, how can the city justify charging $35.50 for a “City
Connection Permit." a charge that appears ill advised, blatantly
opportunistic, and results in the kind of cynicism that governmental units
should try to avoid among homeowners, especicilly those of modest Income. I
was recently unable to construct a little deck on my home because of the high
costs of speciad permits and additional survey costs required by the city which
had no'th ’ng to do with the project. Those would have cost as much as the
I
materials.
7.1 have minimal equity in my home, perhaps less than $2,000. This minute
“equity” would be swedlowed up in the additional assessments and the cost of
selling my home. 1 estimate 1 would lose a minimum of $10,000. Then, 1 would
still have to live somewhere!
8.1 have been on medical disability (fixed income) since November 1995, am
in deep personal debt because of mediced bills and face a frighteningly
uncertain flnancieil future, living from month to month emd somehow just
scraping by.
You may confirm the above by calling: Dr. Tim Richardson 920-6748
Dr. Bruce Mcbeath 644-2267
I cannot afford legal counsel. 1 am only a very modest Income homeowner to
whom the sewer project proposad has caused incredible stress and a sense of
hopelessness. Your sensitive consider^tl9|:^of my unique situation would be
greatly appreciated.
Sincerely.
1