Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-18-1992 Public Hearing_Continuation_ Stubbs Bay Sewer Project PackettS;.''r-': ‘-*1 4 •I. \- • -MINUTES OF THE CONTINUATION OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING HELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON HELD MAY 18, 1992 ROLL The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, CounciImembers Gabriel Jabbour, Edward Callahan, J. DIann Goetten and Mary Butler. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Ron Moorse, Public Works Director John Qerhardson, Finance Director Tom Kuehn, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, City Attorney Tom Barrett, City Engineer Glenn Cook, and City Recorder Terl Naab. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:08 P.M. Mayor Peterson noted that this meeting is a continuation of the public hearing for the Stubbs Bay Assessment. The meeting was continued to allow Mr. Knight, an attorney representing residents in the area, time to meet with the City and to get answers to their quss 11uns. Mr. Knight said he has communicated several times with the City and has submitted a proposal to the City Administrator Moorse. He explained the principal concern of his cllents Is the cost of the project. He stated the consensus of the residents he represents is that they would like sewer but disagree with the cost and would like to see an extension to the required hookup time period. He stated tho proposal he submitted did not exclude any parcel. He expresses hla cllents’ feeling that the value of their homes do justify a lower sewer charge. Lee Harren. 175 Landmark Drive, said he has sent several letters to the Council stating his opposition of inclusion. He explained his house was constructed in 1989 on a 2> acre parcel with primary and alternate septic sites. He stated the City Engineer Indicated to him that the only reason for inclusion was that the neighboring property to the west needed sewer which could be run through his property, but that was deemed undesirable as It would run approximately 400’ through a wooded area. He stated he Is currently being Included through a lateral from the east. He asked the Council to consider his property to be excluded from the project and asked that he get a response from the Counci I in writing. ftJJU P#terson. 475 Oxford Road, said that the houses on Oxford Road are all newer and are all on 2-*’ acre lots. She stated that 7 of the 9 property owners on that street are opposed to the project. Jabbour asked to have It clarified if the residents of Cygnet Place and Oxford Road wished to be included with the project. m H;.. !■ te ^5-;^ ?r • '4 1'm^.viiLWw-*-fifA'v- ‘j' ■; K. IS' jyny ;■ ■;• r ^ -i-i }'■ ^f!r- Ne •: ji }^l i;'Vi • ■ f- % \ V. ?! iv;^ f- 'if-yI.L v; f- aS. ' ' & MINUTES OF THE CONTINUATION OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING HELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON HELD MAY 18, 1992 Joe Otmep, 4QQ Oxford Roa«j. stated that many of the residents in that area wish to be included if the price is right. He said they were hoping to have a counter offer to the proposal that they had submitted through Mr. Knight. Qoetten understood that there was criteria that properties would need to meet to be excluded from the project. Dennis Shaw. 405 Oxford Road, stated they fell excluded from the whole process. He tried to join the citizens advisory committee and was discouraged from joining. Knight clarified that the consensus of his group is that they would agree with the sewer at an acceptable price, but at the current proposed assessment, wished to be excluded from the project. Goetten said, “they can’t have it all Mayor Peterson asked what they consider an acceptable price. Knight said that the proposal residents he represents want. he submitted states what the Goetten clarified that the group Knight represents want the taxpayers of Orono to pay a large portion of the project. She stated that the Council, In good faith, decided to pay 30* of the project. KnIght sa I d they w*re hop Ing the City wouId counter the Ir propose I. Jabbour explained that the present Council decided to assess via an appraisal process to determine the potential of a property and what would stand up In court. He felt that property owners should not feel Impelled to hire a lawyer to get what Is fair to them. He stated that if the citizens that Knight represents feel that they have not had enough time to study the project, they should be allowed more time, but he felt the base of the project should continue. He stated that the original intent was to run the sewer I Ine across the lakeshore portion of the property on Oxford Road but due to the request of the residents, was changed to run down the street which made the assessment for that area higher. Sfiaw noted that to allow connection for a falling system, the line needed to run down the road. Jabbour said he does not have a problem allowing additional time F;. f'V ♦• :0-‘'' !^l. lii" •M. ;• ;'. w: I % ^••' •;/. f:l <\'Av: \ ’:• MINUTES OF THE CONTINUATION OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING HELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON HELD MAY 18, 1992 to hook up If the septic system is functioning properly Dave Peterson. 2625 Fox Street, stated he was on the advisory committee* He said he Is not a part of this project but his mother’s property Is Involved. He noted that his septic system has recently failed, and on a 2 1/2 acre parcel, cannot find an alternate site. He stated that the I Ife expectancy of a septic system is 20 years. He reminded them that nothing can be built on an alternate site and It cannot be driven on. He stated it will cost him more to restore his system than the sewer project will cost any of them. He stated to Shaw that the advisory committee’s Intent was to welcome anyone wishing to be involved. Pat Crane. 28S Leaf Street, stated he is part of the Cygnet Place area. He said he preferred to be a part of the project but felt that the Council pulled a figure out of a box. He stated it appears that they determined the cost of the base area, then Included the additional areas at a higher cost. He felt that the entire project should be figured on a per unit basis, making the cost of the project for everyone $10,762.00, less the amount retained In the contingency fund at $730.00 per parcel. He felt It was unfair that an area would get service for less than another. Terry cisen. 3640 Bavslde Road, said he accepts the project but questioned why those In need of the service are paying less for the project. He said he had a problem with a mandatory hookup If the current system Is functioning. Linda Whitman. 3620 El Ieen Street, stated she originally requested to be excluded from the project, but has changed her position. She stated they would like to be included but do not want to be forced to hook up Immediately. She noted they would like some possibiIIty of negotiating the assessment. Mike FInntev. 3425 Eastlake Street, said he was In favor of the project, but felt that it should not be assessed on a per unit bas s as he has a very small lot with a cabin. David Itse. 3630 Eileen Street, stated they would like to be Included but objected to the required hookup. He said he would like to tee the contingency fund returned to the property owners. Don Gronberq. 110 Leaf Street, explained that there is a dam on his property. He said he was one of the first to purchase a lot In this erea, and when he did so the creek was not flooded. The <jam wee installed with the blessings of the DNR in 1960-61. He eteted that there is a valve that is used to release the water IV ty-h /> fe;- r- V- -ji" ■ ’ -V r 'ij Ilia-!,-I .:j; HINUTES OF THE CONTINUATION OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING HELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON HELD HAY 18, 1992 which may change the setbacks required t'‘ the creek. He asked If the dam were to go out, who could be required to pay for restoration. He asked that the Council further consider this property with regards to setbacks and sewering. He stated the main intent of the sewer project is to help clean up Lake Minnetonka and wondered If the City couldn’t contribute more in light of this. Mayor Peterson closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Jabbour asked if staff had looked into using CD6G funds to help residents with lower income with the project. Moorse explained that per Larry Blackstad, Coordinator of the funds, there was potential to use some of that money and stated he was to meet with Blackstad at the end of the week. Mayor Peterson clarified that the money cannot be used to apply towards the entire project. Jabbour asked If the contingency could be divided and assigned to specific areas, and If that area did not have any appeals, could be refunded to those residents. Qoetten stated that the money cannot be returned until the project is completed. Butler clarified that those In agreement with the project are opposed to the Immediate hookup. She stated that deadline is set by the Council but noted a date-certain would need to be established. She did not care when that date was as long as it was specified. Butler explained that when the project was bid, the cost was determined. She said, “you do not go to the grocery store and argue with the grocer over the price of a pound of butter". The same principal applies to the sewer project. Mayor Peterson and Jabbour agreed. Goetten said she agreed with the philosophy but did not want the deadline date for connection to be extended to 20 years and stated that the owner would need to prove their septic system was working ♦o continue use. Callahan felt that those In need of sewer should be required to connect Immediately. He stated that staff should have the final decision on whether a system is functioning and can continue to be used. He noted that if a house Is sold, the owner should be required to connect to sewer. He felt that 3-5 years for mandatory hookup would be appropriate. W J ■"'7T'.-rr '. ,'■■ s,:"'1AIf- u I: M' rv It ?*' •■' |!-* / e' »' ' '. e'“ v» ■ : 0^. p:^0fy: ' ■ ivv';/.. ^= “•>«ES» t'** •-’ ;■ ■' » HP'-'-m‘t ..f ■ r‘: ^ > ■ pi; ::;.:e^ 'm%: ; 4- ■^‘ % M HINUTES OF Tit CONTINUATION OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING HELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON HELD MAY 18, 1992 Moorse agreed that parameters need to be established and suggested staff draft ci'teria to determine If a system Is functioning proper Iy. Qaffron noted •■nat various conditions would need to be defined. He Indicated tnat failure would include systems discharging to the surface while non-conforming systems may be a system not discharging to the surface but too close to the water table based on f jl I borings. He stated that because of the new shoreland regulations, the DNR ana PCA are saying that if an existing system is too close to the wate^ table, it is a non-conforming system and must be replaced within a year. Jabbour stated that he urderstood that the PCA Is going to make a conscious effort to pursue enforcement. He stated that !f the project had been done a couple years ago when the water table was lower the cost would have been much lower. He reminded the residents that because of the City’s good bond rating, the City is able to get a bond at a lower rate. He felt that they have a moral obligation to continue with the project for the base area. He Indicated ns would like to go ahead with the project excluding Oxford Road .:‘'d Cygnet Place. Qoetten felt that the criteria should be evaluated for areas not to be Included. She asked If the trunk charge should be assessed to the two areas excluded. Jabbour asked If a new public hearing would be necessary to change the assessr: t roll to Include only a trunk charge to those areas. Barrstt stated the Council has given notice of the project at certain dimensions. He stated that if reduced in scope or assessment, the Council would need to order a reduced project by resolution and that this assessment would be effective to pay for that reduced project. Butler suggested they decide on the time period for required hookup as that may help those opposed to the project decide If they wished to be included. She stated that the price cannot be changed as If more is assessed City-wide to all taxpayers, there will be many more In opposition to this project. She explained that the proposed assessment wl I I mean a $5.00 to $25.00 per year/per parcel for 16 year Increase to alI in Orono. Jabbour said he did not care If the property was required to hookup If sold. i ■A 1^. i W; i^:.' ffi:^‘ -■i *^^■ i4- % ;♦*>' Sijf rf ■fa f^‘- wBMP m.v p.I. .: = -^i-:.. ftf ■K •'■ |:W!?.' i f|is * rlv**'-* J^. ■WP MINUTES OF THE CONTINUATION OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING HELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON HELD MAY 18, 1992 Callahan felt that It could easily happen that a future owner would be unaware of the required hookup charge. Barrett stated that Information would not have to be legally disclosed. He Indicated that the on I y way to ensure the future Qv^ner was Informed would be to tile a document against the chain of title, however on torrens property that woUd be very difficu't. He explained that future property owners would be subject to the City ordinances In effect at that time. Butler reviewed a memo by Gaffron entitled, "Extended period for sewer connect ion", whereby the folIowing cond’tions were suggested: 1. All failing systems shall connect to the immediately upon the availability of the sewer. sewer 2. All systems determine to be non-conforming, including those too near the water table and/or less than 75’ from the creek or lake and/or less than 50’ from a well shall connect to the sewer within 16 months of Its avaiIabI I Ity. 3. Any conforming funct'oning system constructed before 1/1/78 shall connect to the sewer within 16 months of Its availability. Such systems will have had a useful service life of 15 years or more. 4. Any conforming system constructed between 1/1/78 and 1/1/88 shall connect within 36 months of sewer availability or by 1/1/96, thus ensuring that such systems shall have had a useful service life of between 8 and 17 years. 5. Any conforming system constructed after 1/1/88 shall connect within 60 months of the date of availability or by 1/1/98, thus allowing a minimum of 6 years and up to 10 years of useful service life for those systems. 6. Regardless of the above allowances, the sewer must be connected upon any sale of the property served with sewer. 7. All properties regardless of connection status, start paying the quarterly sewer charge at the end of the 16 month standard connection period. Shaw asked if he has a double mound septic system, but is currently only using one of those, would ne be allowed to switch to use the reflialning one before required to hookup. 6 few-.V,>'r- i [||. %:■w s||^. i. m m-^:m/: 1*11 K-:me. =:-t -.' Is ■M W*l.& IRE-': -■ 4.- m , gpfe' ■■fefe- ||s #:' 'I'm 3: -’'-Ifc iMk »■:fm^m. 3Wi«#*R W- ■ %:' ;; V/-^' .Vi*'.«il* BiSis MINUTES OF THE CONTINUATION OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING HELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON HELD MAY 18, 1992 DeMeo said he has a non-conforming system, but it will a couple hundred dollars to bring it into conformance. If that would fall under the 5 year hookup scenario. on Iy cost He asked Saffron stated that would have to be a policy decision whether or not the CouncI I would allow updates to the current septic system to allow additional usage of that system. Jabbour felt that if the property doesn’t need sewer, the Issue should not be pushed. Mike McLaughlin, IQQ Leaf Street, asked what selling his home had to do wIth the qua I Ity of the septic system. He said he has a large Iot and does not need the sewer. He explained that he built the house 5 years ago and was told at that time that sewer would not be available to that property. Bob MInkemna. .^^200 Bavside Road, felt that the quarterly service charge to residents not hooked up is ridiculous. Linda Whitman said that the life of a septic system is based In part on the usage of the residents and maintenance. She would prefer the Council establish a deadline for hookup when the syst». faiIs. Qnffron asked If properties using holding tanks would be requli.. 1 to hookup Immediately. Jabbour said they should be required to hookup right away. Mayor Peterson agreed. Qaffron said the reason for suggesting that properties be required to hookup upon a sale was because many parcels in this area are sold on a Contract for Deed which do not Involve a mortgage company. Knight asked what date Is the deidllne based upon. Butler Informed him that it is taken from the date of final completion of the project. It was moved by Mayor Peterson, seconded by Butler, to detenalne that upon completion of the project, all parcels with a falling eyetemehall connect Immediately and ell parcels determined to have a non-conforming eyetem Including a system too close to a creek or Igke shall connect within 16 months, and all other parcels are i ij 1 i j- > J-V1, - ■ ,*.">.<■ • T-. ’-?, . V - -.V*', ~T W fe;-few’ l&r MINUTES OF THE CONTINUATION OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARINGHELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON HELD MAY 18, 1992 required to connect to sewer within 60 months unless deemed to have a failing system prior to that date. Ayes 5. nays 0. Mayor Peterson said she has a hard time agreeing with Condition #7. Kuehn said the charge is a sewer aval IabiIity charge which is equal to the quarterly blI IIng, which has been estabiished by ordinance. Jabbour felt that amount should be established based needed for maintenance. on money Barrett reviewed that the Counci I was only making policy decisions on the project and would eventually need to amend the ordinances. He stated the availability charge may have fiscal consequences if deleted. Ppb Provo. 220 Cygnet Place, asked if the $50.00 septic inspection fee would still be charged. Mayor Peterson clarified that it would not be charged to parce.s connected. 01 I Ie Peterson asked how many years they would be paying on the assessment. Mayor Peterson explained the assessment is set for 15 years at 8X. Moorse eA;>itt!ned that If the City gets a better interest rate, the cost of tho project could be reduced. Mayor Peterson called for a recess from 8:30 p.m. to 8:55 p.m. Knight referred the Bederwood aree residents to the Council for direct dialogue. He clarified that he was never critical of the Council offering t.^ pay 30* of the project up front. He stated the group he represents Is willing to settle for an assessment of $10,500.00. He Informed members of his group that at some point they would need to decide whether or not they wished to appeal. He stated they have determined the fa r amount for the assessment based upon the cost of a new septic system. Linda Whitman Informed the Council that the Bederwood group wished to be excluded from Mr. Knight’s group, and they wished to be a part of the project. She expressed appreciation for the extension of time for hookup. She stated the Bederwood residents wished to retain their right to appeal. 8 =ff-‘ ■ wV- -i. X 4 ■••U'KfR 'T'Tre.’?' '• -vW'.' ■ ■ ':.i--* ■. :y.!, 'Ji ■ pi§ "MiiMWBrn ’"'m . 'm :^sy^-i ^., .1^ m MINUTES OF THE CONTINUATION OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING HELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON HELD MAY 18, 1992 Jabbour said he did not understand now that it has been determined that tha sewer needs to run down the street on Oxford Road, why the residents should be assessed more as they do not derive a greater benefit than other areas similar in appraised value to this area. Cook stated that the street replacement is the major cost. He noted the falling system could have been served by running the lino across private property. Jabbour asked how the City could perceive a greater benefit for properties on Oxford Road than on Bederwood where there are 2 acre lots also. Cook explained there is more street to replace on Oxford Road. Butler asked Cook if the Oxford Road portion of the trunk could be Installed adjacent to the road on an easement across the front yards. Cook explained that the eouipment would still damage the road. He stated the homeowners would have to agree to a lesser road, which they have indicated would not be acceptable. It was sioved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to adopt the assessment roll for the Stubbs Bay Sewer Project for all properties excluding Cygnet Place, Oxford Road and Leaf Street. Ayes 5, nays 0. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Jabbour, to adopt the remaining assessment roll for the Stubbs Bay Sewer Project for properties on Cygnet Place, Oxford Road and Leaf Street. Ayes 3, nays 2. Mayor Peterson and Butler voted nay. (Motion failed based on the requirement for a 4/Sths vote.) Callahan felt that the trunk charge should be assessed to properties not 100% included in the project, and It was Indicated by those residents that they wish to be included all or nothing. Butler explained she voted nay because at the last meeting Mr. Deter!ing reminded the Council of a petition with almost 100* opposition to the project. She felt they should be charged for the trunk charge and said that at some time In the future they may need to have service and would then have to pay the remainder. Mayor Peterson felt that Mr. Knight’s group should be allowed additional time to consider the project. V. ^ - r *" ■^0v-r'-V 1^ <. ; ■¥ :f .‘■i. H, »^, I, ^■. '« ,-V^v :vSv:> :■■ if ^ ;■ /: % 'fes !.i*. W j; !• p p-.p-te |p''- R:.fife [ipfci. MINUTES OF THE CONTINUATION OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING HELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON HELD HAY 18, 1992 Knight asked If the current trunk charge of $5,650.00 would also be reduced by the 30% proposed to be paid by the City. Jabbour stated that the participation. 30% was only offered for 100% Qoetten reminded them that a future Council discount the remaining amount. may choose not to Callahan stated that If the trunk charge is assessed, that area would need to be made a part of a full project. He noted that the residents have the 30 day appeal time to further study the project. Jabbour explained that the Council has proceeded with its best offer and would not reduce the assessment. He stated that it Is expected to cost the City approximately $18,000.00 per house per appeal. Goetten noted that the Council Is concerned about the health, safety and welfare of the residents and stated that If that is the criteria for sewering an area, she hated to exclude anyone because of the co^t. Jabbour suggested they order the project to begin, and if at che end of the 30 day appeal period It Is determined that thore are too many appeals, drop that portion of the project. It Mas Movad by Butler, seconded by Callahan, to assess the trunk charge to the properties on Cygnet Place, Leaf Street and Oxford Road. Ayes 3, nays 2. Mayor Peterson and Goetten voted nay. Notion falled. Butler explained that when the trunk line is laid along Bayside Road, It will present Itself at the corner of Leaf Street and County Road 84, which wi I I make It aval I able for connection for the properties on Oxford Road, Leaf Street and Cygnet Place. She felt that because of that availability, the trunk charge should be assessed to those properties. QQ^tten felt that by doing such would be doing the citizens In that area a great disservice. Deter IIng clarified that since the submittal of the petition expressing opposition, the cost has been reduced, the DNR has Imposed restrictive regulations, and many feel that sewer is Inevitab Ie. pjtetei; if#'■ b'v'-'- iis m" pi- Kf M:I P'^-'-.i-' lIRft (Sflft. . 'i.l.;- MINUTES OF THE CONTINUATION OF THE STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARINGHELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON HELD NAY 18, 1992Butlar stated that Deterling reminded the Councii at the last meeting of the petition. Gaffron clarified that Bayside East includes Leaf Street up to the Luce Line. Cygnet Includes and the portion of Leaf north of the Luce Line. Deter I Ing noted that since that meeting, many have had a change of heart. Cathy St. Lawrence. 253 Cygnet the petition the situation has t be a part t'f tne project. Place, said that since she signed changed, and said they would like Brian Ehalt. 140 Leaf Street, asked if his wife’s name could be removed from the petition. He suggested City staff review each eyetem on Cygnet Place and let people know how their system is doing. Gaffron said he would be happy to meet with the owners to discuss their system. ffleo Bloominqdale. 145 Cygnet Place, noted they had signed the petition but the situation has changed drastically s nee then and have since decided they wish to be Included v«lth the project. She stated that the price of the service Is not equitable. Pat Crane noted at the last meeting a vast majority of those in attendance wanted sewer but objected to the price. He felt that the Council has gotten Itself into a box by expanding upon the base price and adding the lateral cost to additional areas. Jabbour explained that the assessment was based upon an appraisal of wht . would hold in court. The appraisal was done on a neighborhood basis. prane said his house Is on the other side of Leaf Street. The other side of the street is being assessed $8,800 and he is being assessed $13,000. He felt this Is unfair. He stated the entire area should have been assessed one unit price pe^* household to be fair. Jabbour Indicated that there would be no way in court to defend tf^st type of assessment as the smal I house on Lake Street Is not worth as much nor does it have as much potential as the homes on larger lots. i '.1!. • L'.\. prk fy- Wi-" PA'- f%Ilf' §• ■W-^ m’-■ :•- v'A'; iy-ij ' ^:;'. '■ ;;r:- i •-V;. -Mpa r r* C-* i# K'' ^ V . 1^*'" .”- • -r-,^ .. -w- *i-.-.,. HINIJTFS of the continuation of the STUBBS BAY ASSESSMENT HEARING HELD BY THE ORONO COUNCIL ON HELD MAY 18, 1992 Moors® explained that they also charged areas costs specific to that area. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution •3121 approving the entire assessment roll as proposed for the Stubbs Bay Sewer Project. Ayes 4, nays 1. Mayor Peterson voted nay. Motion passed. Barrett explained that owners may need to be renotifled to amend the roll at the end of the 30 day appeal period if determined that the roll will change. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Mayor Peterson, seconded by Butler, Continuation of the Public Hearing for the Stubbs at 9:45 p.m. Ayes 5, nays 0. to adjourn the Bay Assessment /) /-V./ Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor I I In, City Clerk f.'.. , I-m:-in ’^■if V..<; Outwwia -gr tj?^unqi1 i'r^ Ql ®wTTX IOO«^ 14-1 OC3 PUBLIC ATTENDANCE I ■T^r :JrhA CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. ft M" ^ ¥■ NAME (please print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) ievJK/isc<\/ 2.r- H... m 3. 4. 5. m €. 4rs'cyfc'-o 2. 7. 8. 9. 10 .i X 1 p. ------- ' ■ 12- M^12.* ----------------------------- ------------- U, ____________________ Ik ■ 15. - ■ " ""---------------■- ■ -■hi .■ ' 16. ' 17- i— ■■—■■■- -------------------------------------------------------------------— 18. 85. ; 1 i* Mm W^?r §m iis wr^•^ %- ^. :i 'i%'' 1'^ ■• k. ‘-4i - .i i- 'r::.<' iri:«l ■ >■.' %4•v" .;• mmm I'?'-. tmmtl‘W:mrr-*i-lmM :k , ■ - TO; FBOM: Mayor and City Council //IRon Moorse, City Administrator DATR:May 15, 1992 SUBJECT: Stubbs Bay Sewer Project Assessment Hearing The continuation of the May 4 hearing will be held at 7:00 p.ir. on May 18 in Rooa 115 and 1S7L Orono Education Link. The cafeteria was not available. I have attached the agenda from the May 4 assessment hearing. Items 1 through 7 have been completed. The Council continued action on the adoption of the assessment resolution. This is the only agenda item the Council is required to address. The Council is not required to reopen the public hearing portion of the meeting for additional public comments. However, the Council may oo so if it so desires. X have attached a copy of the assessment additional materials to assist the Council process. resolution and in its decision ■'1- % i .* i ^ 1i«- I m ' -"-■ * tji: ^ ;*1', mm. fb'%- fer-f i:s: H". (S ' •/ I ifc' l}i,= Bfe fe” l‘*‘r^' ESi> ■■'•iiv< me ..jy ■•. - H' si;#* h i- ■ ‘ . i -.'V ^.-. K l:ir,- ylr . >1.Wfy "0'r-^ ' r ■ vS: ■ m.. STUBBS BAY SEWER PROJECT ASSESSMENT HEARING MONDAY, MAY 4, 1992, 7:00 P.M. ORONO HIGH SCHOOL CAFETERIA 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. AGENDA Mayor Opens the Hearing Sununary of Project Need Summary of Project Design Summary of Project Benefit Summary of Assessment Financing Public Comment Closing of Hearing Council Considers the Adoption of the Assessment Resolution 9* Adjournment 1 1 ..-J i 'i 1^■ff^'- te im. V’"' ■ft'; -t S' K;' L; i- *- • • > ■ ••^ ■ • ir^%'> iii ii#'’ ^>y P?¥:A: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING STUBBS BAY SANITARY SEWER ASSESSMENT ROLL HHERBASr pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council nas met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement of sanitary sewer in the Stubbs Ray 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 benefited 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, 1993 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8 per cent 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, 1992. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest foi one year on all unpaid installements. 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 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time 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 succ-'edlng year. Partial prepayment may be allowed in accordance with ordinances which are existing or which the City may choose to adopt in the future. A-' 'M 1 mw ■'; V.V ' -W“- K)-‘.';t?-«-i i.-’f i» ■i^y ■fl'; L>-:t ■;■■ Iff '< H ■' '"■ .'I.,: -'ij' WiM." i. r-.' slti *v -■f '^■' ■■ 'il p ■: > ■&dm- 1 (.', '■v ::•P Pp'; •>' ■ I^' ■ m% ■ »,«■ ■ lip" ■ mMk 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 Council this 18th day of May, 1992. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M.Hallin, City Clerk mtim Utti Ji ■ -1|jp: .I*"'wW-XK'.' ■i ■^)m >.= N. p# ®#il:fe-.. Mayor and City Council 1f V ' •Ron Moorse, City Administrator l\y 7 / May 15, 1992 SUBJECT: Assessment Alternatives Concerninq Cyqnet and Leaf Streets and Oxford Road Exclusion from the Stubbs Pay Sewer Project I have attached information showinq the affect of exclusion of Cygnet and Leaf and/or Oxford from the Stubbs Bay sewer project on the City's share of the project costs. The information indicates that if the City picks up 100% of the Cygnet and Leaf share of the trunk costs, the City's participation rate would increase from 30% to 32%. If the City picks up 100% of the Cygnet, Leaf and Oxford share of th? trunk cost, the City's participation rate would increase to 33%. —':4V-k>V'---.--vv ^-' • . A'_C !=►■-'f rt^ 14'«oe:£0 THE city of QP-OO OOJ•Vpr.I§AI IA - D*'^ ^ A M. A A M ^i I ^ ^ ^ p. I am , B«d«r%food ^ Htytidt Horth 'o«*oxa r Cyfntt i Leaf Te'UJt ^ C*-|-cyyvB^ I L aa^ heaetORient/ Unitt Unite 93 I) Total Asseesment Total Project Cost City ParticipatiOB I2,‘?'?0 ii,j-ar w, *7 S3,720 l^^,2‘70 '4I>, IW /3<J,=i/o 1,138,110 ZlCibTO 4,00 I S'? o *t/o4,3^n *'72,7tO (y.,7¥0j #24,^809 p4- 131 fr rr6>;T?Q ?s /3,^.0 ■ p'- • • . A >g 70 7« A»ier-.-ry^,u,^.f 4 T,-^,/r. r U.*yi -fe. Cj,^.+ ' L».«-f iV 1 ‘ : ■.'!' f U.f so 3'IS-^ll&,(oSX> 54:-'ifSS^, 770 <fi/«, ut>) ^390,21,0 iM t41': ■i/ • sj'C.r ,■•■ Al4-e>r.o-t,. 1C /0^7i A-iSP«m>3 TKtfVilr <^4|iyvs« ) ^ m m- 30 suso iu^soo h ^jS'SC.,770 f32%mo f.'.»>4 ■;'-■> C'"*' :■ ■■■«4 . ?•■ Vci-r &r- E,. f M/ % feffc IfWSP, , *\* .1!i :^t.-- ,--r- \ J KJi-wm '■nVi-■ ■Wl'-";-'- ■ ■i#P ;■ tekM:^Sfo.;‘'. r^- ^ TO: DATE: Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planninq s. Zoning Administrator May 13, 1992 80BJECT: Analysis and Proposal - Extended Period for Sewer Connection W:' 1$i » pi- tete- p':^sV-.mm m- feteiM List of Exhibits A. Section 9.02 Sub. 1 - "Sewer Connection Required" B. Section 12.30 Sub. 4 B1 - "16 Month" Requirement I. Analysis The appellants represented by Michael Knight request an indefinite extension of the deadline for connection to sewer. Current city code requires that all properties served with sewer connect to that sewer within 16 months of its availability. The appellants contend that in many cases where they have recently constructed new septic systems, they should be able to get some reasonable period of use from those systems before having to abandoned chem and connect to sewer. On the face of it, this is a reasonable request. However, if no arbritary deadline is set, the city staff will ultimately have to argue the fine points of whether a given system has reached a fai lure or non­ conformity level that demands sewer connection. From a purely administrative standpoint, when push comes to shove it is much easier to argue that "city policy requires you to hook up by a certain deadline and that is all there is to it" than to attempt to convince a property owner that the system is non-conforming. Mr. Knight also indicated that it might be reasonable to allow the property owner's economics to dictate whether he connects to the sewer or repaILS/replaces his system when the city determins that it is non- conforming. Assuming that the property owner is paying sewer assessments and the quarterly sewer charge, the economics likely would work in the city's favor, and in most situations connecting to the sewer would be cheaper than system repairs. One downside of not having a definite deadline is that 20 years down the road and three homeowners later, nobody w; 11 remember whether or not the sewer has been connected, when I first started with Orono in 1978, ray first task was to go through 1,500 street files to determine which properties served with sewer had not yet connected. I found more than 100, dating back as much as 15 years before that time. It took another 5 years to finally get the bulk of that list connected. We need to avoid such activity in the future. II. Proposed Sewer Connection Period Extension. Based on some of the concerns noted above, the following may be a reasonable if not somewhat complex policy for sewer connections: 1 f l: -a 5 \ If—Tff- ■’■■■■■ ' • ’ V, ■ '' ■ :r UV ‘m. Analysis and Proposal - Extended Period for Sewer Connection page 2 of 2 1. All failing systems shall connect to the sewer immediately upon its availability. 2. All systems determined to be non-conforming (including those too near the watertable and/or less than 75' from the creek or lake and/or less than 50' from a well) shall connect to the sewer within 16 months of its availability. 3. Any "code" or "conforming" functional system constructed prior to January 1, 1978 (the approximate effective date of contemporary septic codes) shall connect to the sewer within 16 months of its availability. Such systems will have had a useful service life of 15 years or more. 4. Any "code" or "conforming" system constructed between January 1, 1978 and January 1, 1988 shall connect within 36 months of sewer availability or by January 1, 1996, thus ensuring that such systems have had a useful service life of between 8 and 17 years. 5. Any "code" or "conforming" system constructed after January 1, 1988 shall connect within 60 months of the date of availability, or by January 1, 1998, thus allowing a minimum of 6 years and up to as many as 10 years of useful service life for those systems. 6. Regardless of the above allowances, the sewer must be connected upcn any sale of a property served with sewer. 7. All properties, regardless of connection status, start paying the quarterly sewer charge at the end of the 16 month standard connection period. To maki some sense out of the various deadMne dates, staff would draft a resolution listing deadline dates for individual properties, for Council adoption. However, in order to create such a list, the system conformities need to be verified. This means that soil borings and interpretation must occur on every property to determine whether the existing system meets the vertical seasonal watertable separation. While staff has the expertise to do such borings and interpretation, any homeowner likely find a consultant who would dispute staff's findings leading to conflicts. (We are wrestling with this issue in all of the shoreland areas, not just Stubbs Ray, and are currently assembling information from other jurisdictions ?s to how they are approaching this issue). The above sewer connection policy proposal is offered for discussion purposes only at this time. Given my druthers, I would prefer to make it much more simple by merely requiring Immediate connection for failing systems and a one or two year extension of the 16 month period for all other connections. However, such a proposal would likely not be viewed as a compromise by the appellants. A TO; FROM: DATE: Ron Moorse» City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planninq & Zoning Administrator May 13, 1992 ¥ SUBJECT: Greg Ehalt Letter - Vacant Lot Analysis of His Claims 5/11/92 - 9 -IpifeJ' ' :A iK & iC:M:. km. w. ■ List Of Bxhiblts Exhibit A - Ehalt Letter and Sketch Exhibit B - Staff Sketch witn Topography Overlay and Drainfield Site Potentials In Ehalt's third paragraph, his analysis of our discussion is • lightly skewed. We indicated that his only hope is to prove to the Council that he had a buildable lot meeting all the setbacks without the sewer, and perhaps the Council would then consider a reduction in the assessment. Based on Mr. Ehalt*s sketch, which is not to scale, I remain absolutely unconvinced that this lot uuildable today with only a lot area variance. I would make the following co^anents: 1. The topographic overlay was in our files, apparently done about fifteen years ago. I would not vouch for its absolute accuracy, but it does indicate generally the slope percentages and directions on the property. 2. Based on my drawing, I would argue that his 35' wide proposed house could only be 30' deep on the left side, 35' on the right side, and still meet the 50* front setback and 100* creek setback. This yields a 1,000 s.f. house under his scenario. 3. He has not included the required 20' setbacks from the drainfield to the house. Once these are accounted for, drainfield area "A" is 40*x90', with the slope from 6-14% running absolutely perpendicular to the rock bed. The rock bed cannot be placed above original grade having an end-to- end slope of more than 2%, the average grade under this rock bed would be 6%, making this rite with this orientation absolutely unusable. Em-t % ■ It Bitm f' t;-: JS.r t. r-: i-<-r e- Ur %I m-wH: f- - l?v.w W'- H'- I r lWi^ Memo May 13, 1992 Page 2 4. Drainfield "B", after the 20' setback is removed is 60'x80’, with slopes running diagonally through the site. Slopes range from 6% (Orono's absolute upper limit for the original slope underneath a mound) to 20% or more. A mound system oriented correctly with the topography would either encroach within inches of the house, or would have to be pushed to the left into an area with 10-12% slopes, again too steep for a mound system. 5.Based on the information above, it is my opinion that Ehalt has at best one conformining drainfield site, not two, even without the issue of house placement coming into the picture. 6.If one were to designate the one conforming drainfield site as the primary, and grant slope variances for a secondary site at the front right corner of the lot (which is the only other half way reasonable location for a secondary site), then you would absolutely be forced to grant variances to the 100* unsewered creek setback required as part of our recent Shoreland Ordinance. Prior to the ordinance, it likely would have been feasible to locate a house in the back half of the property still meeting the 26* wetland setback and the 20* mound system setback. 7.The soil survey indicates Kilkenny loam soils at this site. It has been my experience that this soil type generally is not suitable for trench type drainfield systems, but normally mound systems will work adequately if located on relatively flat areas, i.e. slopes of 6% or flatter. Cooclaslon No attempt has been made by Mr. Ehalt to have a prof ess iona 1 site evaluator determine the legitimate feasibility of drainfield sites on this property. His inaccurate sketch and lack of system design detail is absolutely inadequate to prove anything about the buildability of this property. I would argue that unless the actual site topography is significantly different than what is shown in our files, it will be impossible for Mr. Ehalt or his consultant to come up with a site plan that shows two conforming drainfield sites, and a house location ***ting current zoning standards. Further, even if the structural setback from the creek was relaxed, there appears to be only one conforming drainfield site on the property, not two. This lot in my opinion would not meet the current requirements for buildability without sewer. i 'TT f*......... ■?^ \'..-V^? ii4 iSii# ■*rm:Mps7 ®S's- ;5i"? ■P- W- ' ■ K8$ij> PAWNEE ROTATIONAL MOLDING, INC Way 11, 1992 flayer Barb Peterson Ed Callahan Diann Qoetten Gabriel Jabbour Hary Butler Subject I Contested SeMer Assesment PID #04-117-23220009 X *ve owned an empty lot adjacent to my residence at 103 Cygnet Place for the past 32 years. !iy intention has always been to use this for my retirement home. Hy sewer assessment on this lot is #10,880. The Hennepin County 199S evaluation notice is only #24,100. This assessment equals 70% of the value which I believe to be totally unfair. lot In discussing this with Harlen Olson and Mike Gaffron, they indicated that if I could show the council that this is a buildable lot meeting all the setbacks without a sewer this lot should have the same assessment as all the other lots on Cygnet Place. The attached layout shows my proposed home located on the lot within the 100 foot (DNR) setback from the water and 30 feet from the street. Notice there is space for two alternate drainfield sites. IM .0^' S' Based on this X contest that this lot was perfectly buildable without seesr therefore it should be considered as benefitting only to the same degree as currently developed lots. Sincerely, iSilf Gregory J. Ehalt J • I cc I m chae I Kn i gh t Hilli ■is ..'Ca SmV. HtOHWAY TWELVE * fa SOX 147 • 14AEL1 ELAIN. MN 0147 . <412) 474-J140 . PAX: <6I2V 474 2104 mm. Iiia A SUiSIOtAEY OP PAWMtl INDUSTRIES, INC ■ "UJ i 1 i 4 eye- -I JT : ] T ^ y c Ma K> Tot Proas Dates Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron, Moorse, City Administrator \ May 18, 1992 Subjects Stubbs Bay Sewer Assessment Hearing Issues Following is a discussion of a number of issues which may need to be addressed at tonight's hearing. 1. The proposal of the organized appeal group. The proposal submitted by the attorney representing Cygnet, Leaf, Oxford, Bederwood and Bayside North involves two main points: A, All assessments be reduced tc the $8,840.00 level. B. No time limit for connection to the new system. Staff has indicated that if the City decides to add some flexibility to the connection time limit, it would have to be within a set of clear parameters. Also, this flexibility would not include non-conforming systems. The Council has received a memo ftom Mike Gaffron setting out some possible parameters concerning a connection schedule. Although the general level of assessments for these areas is relatively high, the assessments do reflect a substantial reduction from the actual cost of the project. Bederwood Bayside Nort Oxford Cygnet & Leaf Actual Cost nr,"55i3 Assessment $12,9^0 16,550 23,360 18,880 11,585 14,990 12,995 $ Diff. ^6,5^6 4,965 8,370 5,885 % Diff. 3376 30.0 35.8 31.2 A reduction to the $8,840 assessment level would require the City to fund well over 50% of the cost for all appealing areas except Bayside North, for which the City's share would be 46.6%. It may be argued that the total project costs should be assessed equally over all project properties since all are receiving the same sewer service. Staff believes the most fair and equitable method of assessment is to charge individual areas those costs directly related to providing them with sewer ••J^vice, i.e. laterals, and to share the costs related to bringing the sewer to the area, i.e. trunk. In addition, a number of items specific to certain areas but beyond lateral costa are included in the trunk charge so that they are shared across the entire project area. These are as follows: L > . ■•:-•' ****•:'mA '- ■• ir- YI^ 7 sr I Stubbs Bay Sewer Assessment Hearing Issues May 18, 1992 Page 2 1. 2. 3. The Bederwood area requires a lift station that serves only their area. The estimated cost of this lift station is $69,000. This cost has been included in the trunk charge so that it is shared across the entire project area. If this cost was born only by the Bederwood area, the Bederwood assessment amount would increase by $4,400. The Cygnet and Leaf Street area has a number of very low areas. There were two alternatives for serving these areas. One alternative was to install at least one lift station. The other alternative was to design the trunk line at a greater depth to eliminate the need for lift stations. The deeper trunk line was the selected alternative. The additional cost of the deeper trunk is being shared across the entire project area. This means the base area, which has most of the project units, is paying the greatest share of this cost. If the total project costs were divided by the total project units, the total cost per unit would be $15,313.00. A 70% assessment rate would translate to a $10,719 assessment amount. Although this sharing of costs across the project area would significantly reduce the assessments for several areas, it would also have substantially increased the assessments for the base area which is already subsidizing the other project areas. Although the Bederwood area is appealing the level of their assessment, theirs is the area that benefits most by being included in the project at this time versus waiting until some future time. This is due to the Bederwood area's need for a lift station at a cost of $69,000. This is included in the trunk cost which means the Bederwood area pays only 8% of the lift station cost. If they were not included in the project, the lift station would be eliminated from the project. Then when Bederwood needed to obtain sewer service, they would pay the full cost of the lift station since there would not be any other areas to share the cost. At a 70% assessment rate the lift station would cost each property $4,400. w j’ifry- . -■J.; Wi i?" ?-■ i I km- U:P- $ h- W" i»' m-. ■ii#te- l^; - '; ^ ■' Wt.' -«-■ -if.-V^'f-lV, : • Stubbs Bay Sewer Assessment Hearing Issues May 18, 1992 Page 3 4.405 and 400 Oxford Road, There are two properties which abut both Oxford Road and Baysice Road. If the Oxford area was not included in the project, these two properties would be included in the project because they are adjacent to the trunk line and as such they would be assessed at a rate of $8,840.00. If the Oxford area is included in the project, they are to be included with the Oxford area with an assessment of $14,990.00. They have argued that it is unfair to be lumped into the higher cost area. Although it may seem that these two properties are being treated unfairly, the inclusion of Oxford Road in the project does provide additional benefits to these properties. These properties are paying the same assessment as the other Oxford properties which receive similar benefits. The additional benefits and higher costs are both related to the reconstruction of Oxford Road. The actual cost of the road is approximately $9,000.00 per unit. Because the City is funding 35*6% of the total cost, the Oxford residents would pay approximately $5,800.00. The existing road is 14 years old. It will need to be replaced in less than 10 years. The cost to replace the road will continue to increase each year. If the Oxford Homeowners Association did this project on its own, it would pay the total cost and would not be able to finance the project over 15 years at 8%. lev j '.v; 2,-k-: :V ; ■mf:xnt‘ ■j't h':-: Cv ‘ ■ I fM i4>.i. fe.: m-t li* 5®:' p*t TOl Dates Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron, Moorse, City Administrator May 18, 1992 Subjects Corrected Information Concerning the City's Costs Related to the Exclusion of Cygnet and T^eaf Streets The exclusion of Cygnet Place and Leaf Street from the Stubbs Bay project would affect the City’s costs in terms of both lateral costs and the trunk costs. Lateral Costs Street are assessment. If Cygnet these costs The lateral costs for Cygnet Place and Leaf $541,230.00. Under the Council's proposed method of the City's share of these costs would be $162,369,00 Place and Leaf Street were excluded from the project, would be eliminated. However, these costs would reappear at the point in the future when the laterals are extended to serve Cygnet and Leaf. Also at that time there will be pressure on the City to participate in the cost. Trunk Costs There is no reduction in trunk costs related to the elimination of Cygnet and Leaf. In order for the City's share of trunk costs to remain as currently proposed, Cygnet and Leaf would need to be assessed for 70% of the trunk charge. If Cygnet and Leaf were excluded from the project and not assessed for the trunk costs, the City's costs related to the trunk would increase by $118,650. It is important that if Cygnet and Leaf are to be excluded from the project they continue to be assessed for their share of the trunk costs at the 70% assf'ssment rate. Isv -I r^y. , -A'-M 't-y\ ‘,.;V'.i r' f'li: ^f:' r ■ ^'' r 'W ■'* c • t-•• ■rot Mayor Peterson and Orono City CouncilRon, Moorse, City AdministratorDatesMay 18, 1992 Subjects Stubbs Bay Sewer Assessment Alternative The City is currently participating in the cost of the Stubbs Bay project at a 30% rate. This rate of pa^^ticipation has been sufficient to limit the number of ai^peals from the base project area to a very small percentage. Othe'* are&s believe the assessments are too high. Three alternatives available to the Council concerning those areas are as follows: 1* Adopt the proposed assessments and deal with the appeals. 2. Exclude these areas from the project. 3, Consider reducing assessments to a more acceptable level. TL.i Council has indicated that the project c:ost includes a $100,000 contingency amount that could be used to reduce assessments if the City's legal fees rexated to easements and appeals are limited. If this entire amount were available, it could be used to reduce assessments by approximately $700 per unit. As part of the process to reach agreement on assessment amounts, the Council may want to tie a reduction in assessments to the provision of appeal waivers and agreements to provide easements at no cost to the City, The following table shows the affect of two assessment alternatives on the City ’s total project participation. Area Current Assessmen 64% Assessment 61% Assessment Bederwood Oxford Cygnet 6 Leaf $ 12,990 14,990 12,995 $ 12,512 14,950 12,083 $ 11,925 14,250 11,517 City Participation (total project cost) Dollars % 629,400 30 662,378 31.6 692,156 33 ■i...