Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-1975 Council Minutes Special Meeting � � • CITY OF ORONO � Special Meeting of the Orono Council, 4: 30 P.M. September 8 , 1975 � The Orono Council met on the above date on � the matter of sewer assessment 73-1 with the � following members present: Mayor Searles, Councilmembers Butler, Massengale, and Welsh. ! Councilmember Paurus arrived at 5 : 40 P.M. Also present: Engineer Long, Attorney � Malkerson, Administrator Benson, and Building & Zoning Administrator Muhich. r Discussion began on the unit and footage of lots '� not subdivided. A discussion opened at the meeting . of September 4, 1975, and laid over for legal advise and Council study. Malkerson said there � was no statutory deferrment allowed for lots such as this. In the case where a huge tract r of farm land was in the path of development or in the case of property which cannot hookup to � the sewer line, such an assessment might be deferred. This was not the case where two or + three units were involved. There were about ten . lots that were questionable on this matter. Members felt it was reasonable to have a guide- � line, or a standard if you will, that could be applied to all of these. If it meets all the ! standards of the zoning district, it is assessed the full assessment. This only eliminated the assessment of the one Lund Iot,perhaps ,in • Vasa Park and George Johnson' s lot in Partenwood. In their case, the house straddled two lots and • the other lots were not buildable. If a lot owned adjacent to the assessable homeowner is a * buildable lot, it will be assessed and cannot be deferred. S Searles moved, Welsh seconded, to reaffirm tilis � standard objectively. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) . � Next, the problem of deferrment of assessments for � senior citizens was discussed. Malkerson felt any relief for these people should be sought � under the State statutes rather than making it a City policy. � Gloria Dotzenroth asked to be placed on record that � she �vas against any placing of the assessment on . the general levy because to do so caould be unfair to the other citizens not in this project. � � � A � * � � `SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER 8, 1975 Page 2 • Mayor Searles stated that in part, some construction � costs are put on the mill levy to pay for that portion of the cost which may be allocated to � certain properties which someday may be allowed to connect to the sewer after rezoning, etc. � Discussion began on the 60/40 relationship of the levy and � the assessment. Malkerson stated there was nothing �n the statutes to indicate any formula � had a preference over another. Long stated � that in an area where lots have regular grid patterns and are of the same size, the choice � of inethods is not so critical bec.ause the properties are diviz3ed equitably. Where there is a diversity � of lot size, length, width, no matter what formula is used it is hard to obtain perfect equitableness. � • Butler stated that this formula had been used in the past in similar projects and proved to be the fairest. � Massengale stated it is always hard to judge every � lot perfectly. The Council has found that the 60/40 formula is the fairest since it provides for a unit � charge based on the fact that each house probably produces the same amount of sewage, since it provides � for a front footage charge,since the larger lot is more expensive to sewer, and since the availability �� of public sewer makes the lots more valuable and the increase of value is related in part to the size of the lot. ` Mrs. Margaret Christensen said it was unfair to assess the Tonkawa and Hackberry areas under the 60/40 formula, � as this formula leans toward favoring the larger lots on Tonkawa and penai..i_zing the one-half acre lots on Hackberry. � She felt an area assessment would be more equitable � than the front foot assessment. She also felt it was an easier method of assessment. � Marge Gasch agreed with Mrs. Christensen. She stated � while she had pushed for sewer, if she had known of the astronomical cost, she would have favored leaving � on-site disposal systems. r A question was posed as to whether any zoning had i taken place after it was ascertained where sewer was going to be placed. Searles replied that the various * bodies had been working on the comprehensive plan since 1972 and zoning is a constant process and that � land use decisions do determine potential sewer areas. Massengale, as an addendum, said this process was by � the planners, not the pipe, and that preliminary planning, not construction, determined sewer area � boundaries. Searles stated that new Councils with � new voices would dictate what changes might be made. � � � � � SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER 8, 1975 Page 3 � The statement that enough effort was not put into obtaining funding for this project prompted Searles � to call John Bollin of the Metro Sewer Board to see if there was any funding available. He was informed � that there was no funding available for laterals. • What funding that was available had to go into interceptors. Long was informed of the same when he + called the Waste Control Commission. � Metro Sewer Memo MUNICIPAL SEWER FACILITY ACQUI5ITION � General Discussion � Pursuant to authority granted to the Council, metropolitan area municipalities and the Metro- � politan Waste Control Commission may propose the acquisition by the Commission of existing municipal � sewerage facilities and the Council must approve such • proposals prior to Commission acquisition. � It is the intent of these procedures to put an end to the period of initial metropolitan acquisition of � local sewage facilities needed for the metropolitan system which began with the establishment of the � Metropolitan Sewer Board in 1969. This procedure will become effective on Jaunary 1, 1976, at which time � the Council's "Interceptor Defini�tion and Criteria" • will be superceded and replaced by this procedure. Until that time, the Council and Commission shall continue to process requests for local acquisitions pursuant to the Definition and Criteria approved � by the Council November 25 , 1970. ! A. Handling Procedures � 1. Commission acquisitions of municipal sewerage facilities (hereinafter "local acquisitions") � and studies with regard to the same, shall be included as part of the Council' s policy plan � and the Commission' s development program and capital budget and shall be approved or disapproved � by the Council in accordance with the adopted policy • plan, development program and capital budget procedures. � 2. The Council or the Commission may recommend the amendment of the policy plan to include the possible � acquisition of a local facility in accord�.n ce with MCP1. No direct requests for the acquisition of � local facilities shall be processed other than those • that are included in the policy plan. • B. Criteria l. In considering the inclusion of a local acquisition � in a policy plan, the Council and Commission shall give �consideration to any factors relevant to such a determination. However, local sewerage, line or pipe � acquisition to be included in the policy plan, must at a minimum, satisfy the following conditions: � � � • SRECIAL MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER 8, 1975 Page 4 � a. Be designed for use primarily as arterial sewers and receiving flow from connecting main or trunk sewers � and conveying sewage from a number of drainage areas; and � b. Have been designed to serve areas wholly within the metropolitan urban service area; and � � c. Meet at least one of the following: � 1) Be designed to receive an average daily flow of at least 500,000 gallons per day r from or serve at least 1,000 developable acres in local governmental units other than the one � in which it is primarily located; or � 2) Is located in one local governmental unit and conveys or is designed to convey at least 90 percent of the ultimate sewage flow � originating in an upstream local governmental unit; or � 3) Is needed to directly connect other r facilities owned or to be constructed by . the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. � General Discussion The Metropolitan Sewer Act provides that the Metro- � politan Council may determine that a particular • interceptor or a portion thereof is of substantial benefit to the Metropolitan Area as a whole. In � June, 1972, the Council adopted policy guidelines for determining metropolitan sewer benefit, after � extensive discussion with local governments and sewer service area advisory boards. The metropolitan � benefit concept has not yet been applied by the Council, . but a procedure incorporating the adopted policy guidelines is outlined below in the event that a request • for such declaration be made. � A. Handling Procedures • l. The Council, commission, or any local government may initiate a request that a particular interceptor � or part thereof be declared of inetropolitan benefit. � 2. Such request shall be treated as a proposed amendment to the Council policy plan for the commission. � 3. Amendment of the policy plan for the purpose of � declaration of inetropolitan benefit shall be in accordance � with the provisions of the Metropolitan Reorganization Act governing the adoption and amendment of the Commission policy plan. � � a � � SP�CIAL MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER 8, 1975 Page 5 a 4. The Council may determine that a particular interceptor or some portion thereof is of substantial benefit to the � Metropolitan Area as a whole, and the current costs allocable to such benefit shall be allocated according � to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.05, Subdivision 5, if: � a. The interceptor eliminates the need for a treatment � works not existing on January l, 1970, which could have been constructed consistent with Minnesota Pollution � Control Agency and Metropolitan Development Guide standards in effect when the decision is made to construct the interceptor, or eliminates the need for a treatment works existing on January 1, 1970 � or improvements to it; and � b. The decision to build the interceptor was or is made to protect or improve a water resource of metropolitan significance. The term "water resource � of inetropolitan significance" shall include any lake or any portion of a major river used as a � source of municipal water supply or designated by the Metropolitan Council as a water area to be protected. � 5. Once an interceptor has been determined to be of * metropolitan benefit, the costs eligible for allocation under the metropolitan benefit provision shall be those � current costs incurred after December 31, 1971. � 6. When the Council makes a determination of inetropolitan benefit, the Sewer Board shall compute the amount of current costs allocable thereto in preparing its budget each year. The amount of current costs allocated to a service area in such year and the current costs that would have been allocated to the service area if the lowest cost disposal system alternative had been � retained, selected or constructed consistent with paragraph one. � Discussion returned to the 60/40 assessment formula. � Malkerson stated that using an area formula was not • proposed at the Public Hearing on the assessment roll. Mrs. Christensen felt there should be more time spent ! on reviewing the use of this formula. Emphasizing the need for an area assessment formula opposed to � a front footage charge. Benson stated October 10 was the last date to send the assessment to Hennepin � County. George Johnson felt it was possible to exceed that time limit. Malkerson volunteered to � explore the possibility of sending it at a later • date to give more time to exploring the area assessment. � � � i ' SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ORONO COUrdCIL, SEPTEMBER 8, 1975 Page 6 � Mayor Searles announced that the Council and press were adjourning at 6: 30 P.M. for a snack at Mr. Benson' s home and would reconvene at 7: 30 P.M. ! Searles moved, Paurus seconded, to adjourn the ADJOURNMENT � meeting at 6: 30 P.M. to return for the regular meeting at 7: 30 P.M. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) . � � --� � - ., Robert . SEarles, Mayor � � Attest• Wa ter R. n n, Cl -A inistrator � � � � � � �