Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 07/20/1971 - Village Meeting MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE VILLAGE COUNCIL Tuesday, July 20 , 1971 7:30 p.m. , High School Members present were: Mayor Osterholt, Councilmen Nesbitt, Haugen, Liab and Redpath. Also present were Manager, George C . Hite and Clerk, Edna M. Holmgren, I. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARINGS 1971 Comprehensive Utility Program A. Duck Lake Area E. Alpine, Hillcrest, Edenwood, Lateral Sanitary Sewer SAN-71-1-17 Estherhill Area. Trunk Sanitary Sewer SAN-71-7-17 Lateral Sanitary Sewer SAN-71-1-20 Lateral Watermain WTR-71-2-17 Trunk Sanitary Sewer SAN-71-7-20 TrunK Watermain WTR-71-8-17 Lateral Watermain WTR-71-2-20 x Trun k Watermain WTR-71-8-20 B. Eden School Area fi Lateral Sanitary Sewer SAN-71-1-I8 F. King's Forest Area � Lateral Watermain WTR-71-2-18 Lateral Sanitary Sewer SAN-71-1-23 Trunk Sanitary Sewer SAN-71-7-23 C . Topview Area Lateral Watermain WTR-71-2-23 Lateral Sanitary Sewer SAN-71-1-24 Trunk Sanitary Sewer SAN-71-7-24 G. Forest Knolls Area Lateral Watermain WTR-71-2-24 Lateral Sanitary Sewer SAN-71-1-22 Trunk Sanitary Sewer SAN-71-7-22 D. Birch Island Area Lateral Watermain WTR-71-2-22 Lateral Sanitary Sewer SAN-71-1-16 Trunk Sanitary Sewer SAN-71-7-16 H. Heritage Park Lateral Watermain WTR-71-2-16 Lateral Sanitary Sewer SAN-72-1-19 Trunk Watermain WTR-71-8-16 Lateral Watermain SAN-72-2-29 Trunk Watermain WTR-71-8-29 I, The Cove Lateral Sanitary Sewer SAN-71-1-21 Lateral Watermain WTR-71-2-21 Mayor Oesterholt remarked that subsequent to the lateral utility public improvement hearings conducted over the past several months the Council had requested the Village staff to develop alternate methods of financing improvements of this type and had scheduled this public improvement hearing so that these proposals might be considered. The Village Manager presented the certificates of notice and mailing. He noted that the projects now under consideration had not been materially changed as to their design but that the cost estimates and proposed methods of financing the improvements were different. He- said the unit costs utilized in the cost estimates had been preparing prepared on the basis that a number of projects would be combined so that contractors would have an opportunity to bid one large rather than a number of smaller projects. Council Minu'a s July 20 , 1971 if Page 2 He also noted that a number of extraordinary cost items such as lift stations and extensions across open land to interceptor sewers had been removed from the costs proposed to be assessed for lateral sewer. He said, that these costs would instead be charged to the Village's trunk utility system account. The proposed method of assessment had been adjusted by increasing the assessment term from 15 to 20 years and deferring the collection on unplatted land until such time as the land is sub- divided. He explained the, provisions of Resolution No. 425 , recently adopted by the Council , which stated the Council's intent to use Village funds to assist in financing the cost of lateral utility service to developed residential properties. The resolution provided for a credit of 25% with a ma:.:.mum of $1,000 against the assessable lateral co St. Mr. John Frane , Village Finance Director, explained the financial impact of the 25% assistance formula and noted tha'L monies needed to finance this assistance proc,ram urould be derived from either general property tax levies against all taxable properties In the Village or in part from revenues received from trunk utility assessments or connection charges. He estimated that the cost of the assistance program would be approximately one million dollars to serve the approximately 1200 existing homes in the Village . If general property taxes were used to defray these costs, Mr. Frane estimated that a mill levy of approximately 8 mills would be required beginning in the year 1973. He said that this would result in a tax of about 27 dollars on a $30,000 house in 1973 which would be reduced to about $20 by 1976 and about $7 by 1980. The Village Manager then presented the following estimated project costs and estimated rates of assessment. Project Cost R.E.C. 's Dev. Lot Vacant Lot i A. Duck Lake Area Lateral Sanitary Sewer $730,000 259 $2 , 115 $2 ,820 Trunk Sanitary Sewer 338,000 20Va. 2 ,820 36Dev. 2 , 115 Lateral Watermain 248,000 215Lat. 58Tr. 863 1,150 Trunk Watermair. 52 ,000 8Va. 1,150 17Dev. 863 B. Eden School Area Lateral Sanitary Sewer $ 81 ,000 �6 $1 ,320 $1,760 Lateral Watermain 72,000 46 878 1,170 18,000 (plus school) C . Topview Area Lateral Sanitary Sewer $233 ,964 105Lat. STr. $1 ,671 $2,228 Trunk Sani":ary Sewer 27,317 Lateral Watermain 105 ,391 106Lat. 5Tr. 746 994 Council Minutes s ]ltl.7 20, 1971 Page 3 Project- Cost. R.E.C. 's Dev. Lot Vacant Lot D. Birch Island A---ea _ Lateral Sanitary Sewer $561 ;000 195 $2 , 160 $2,880 Trunk Sanitary Sewer 175:000 18Va. 2 ,820 20 Dev. 2, 115 Lateral Watermain 196,000 173 Lat. 28Tr. 851 1, 135 Trunk Watermain 96 000 3 Va. 1 , 135 22Dev. 851 E. AJpine , Hillcrest , Edenwood , Estherhills Area Lateral Sanitary Sewer $278,000 127Lat. d 35Tr. 825 11100 Trunk Sanitary Sewer 40,000 Lateral Watermain 119,000 I08Lat. 9Tr. 825 11100 Trunk Watermain 264,000 2 7Va. 23Dev. 825 1 , 100 F. King's Forest Area Lateral Sanitary Sewer $256 ,485 79 $2 ,435 3 ,247 Trunk Sanitary Sewer 16 , 054 . Lateral Watermain 98, 140 78Lat. 1Tr. 944 1 ,258 G. Forest Knolls Area Lateral Sanitary Sewer $178, 178 67 1 ,937 2 ,582 Trunk Sanitary Sewer 18, 153 Lateral Watermain 70,662 58Lat 9Tr. 1,019 1,359 H Heritage Park Area Lateral Sanitary Sewer $ 62 ,000 31 11500 2 ,000 Lateral Watermain 2 0,000 17 885 1 ,180 Trunk Watermain 25 ,000 1 OVa. 11180 4Dev. 885 I.' The Cove Lateral Sanitary Sewer $ 47,815 12 2 ,988 3,985 Lateral Watermain 24, 080 12 11505 2 ,007 R A number of persons expressed their opposition to the proposals stating that they were under the impression that the issue had been settled at the conclusion of the earlier hearings and that the projects now under consideration were no different than those previously considered. They suggested that the proposals be subjected to a referendum vote and that no project be authorized unless it received majority support of persons O ouncil. Minutes July 20: 1971 Page 4 living . within the community at this time. Many of the persons in attendance said that if the projects were authorized , the resulting cost to individual property owners would be significant and beyond the ability of many persons to absorb. Others suggested that the Council should not authorize lateral improvements unless it can be proven that persons experiencing difficulties with the operation of their private sewagle disposal systems cannot correct these problems through system modifications or replacement. A minority of those attending the hearing indicated their support of the project proposals. They indicated that in many of the areas under consideration the need for the proposed ir..provement was obvious and that the revised proposals for financing and assessing the improvements were commendable and deserved the support of the community. The Village Manager presented additional information regarding the annual -,monthly, and daily cost of the improvements based on the estimated rates of assessment. He also presented information regarding the proposed utility use charges and compared hose charges to comparable charges in other communities. Mr. Ken Geason , 7621 Atherton Nay, asked when utilities might be extended to his property. The Manager noted that Mr. Geason's property was not included in the projects now under consideration and that utilities could be extended to the property at the time the land to the north is developed. Mr. Geason asked when such develop- ment might occur and was advised by the Village Manager that his best estimate would be that such development would occur within S years. Mr. Geason asked that the minutes of the meeting specifically note his inquiry and the Manager's response. i Mayor Osterholt remarked that at the earlier hearings there were divided opinions ' expressed regarding both the need and desire for the proposed sewer and water laterals but that the primary obstacle appeared to be cost of those systems. He said the Council, in response to this concern, had directed its staff to prepare alternate financing proposals and that the proposal being considered tonight appeared to have considerable merit. He said he felt it was appropriate for a developing community to have utilities. He also expressed his concern for people on fixed incomes and said he would hope that something could be worked out to assist individuals faced with this problem. He noted that the purpose of the public hearing was to give an opportunity for everyone who had interest in the project to convey to the Council their questions and comments. Councilmen Redpath noted that he had received many phone calls from persons in favor of the proposed project and that he was convinced that there was a need for the system. He said that he felt that it is sometimes necessary for a councilman to act in a matter that he considers to be in the best overall general public interest even though his action may be variance with the more individualized interests of some members of the Community. Council Minutes July 20, 1971 Page 5 Councilman Haugen said that he thought the proposed program was a good one but that he would find it difficult to approve it in those cases where there was neither a demonstrated need nor desire. i Councilman Nesbitt said he was sure that there was a real need for the utilities in I many parts of the Village and that it •w(-Wid have been in the best interests of the Village to have installed the utilities before the areas now underconsideration were ever developed. Councilman Haugen moved that the Council continue the hearing for approximately j three or four weeks and that during the interim period a mail poll be conducted in each of the project areas to determine the individual attitude of each property owner with regard to the proposed improvements for his area. Mr. Nesbitt seconded the 1 motion. On roll call, Mr. Lieb, Mr. Nesbitt, Mayor Osterholt, and Mr. Haugen voted aye. Mr. Redpath voted no. Motion carried, Meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Edna M. Holmgren, Clerk i