HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 10-03-1972 SpecialI
1
NINUT ES
SPECIAL COUNC L MEETING
OCTOBER 3, 1972
A s vial meetingof the Plymouth Village Council was called order
No or Hildeat7 `4 p.m, intheAuditorium of the Wayzata Senior High School,
305 Vicksburg ,ane; Plymouth, on October 3, 1972.
PRESENT: Mayor Hi de, Councilmen Hudt. Spaeth, Seibold and Neils, Tanager
Willis, ttorney Drawz , En ji neer Rudrud . Finance D1 roc for Ricker,
Consulta t Engineer Frigeord-'and Financial Consijltant Chenoweth.
I
ABSENT:', None,
11he Invocation vias given by Rev. Oas of the Greenwood Baptist Church.
PUBLIC HEARING: ASSESSMENTS FOR AREA AND REC CHARGES FOR PROJECTS N0, 1016
118. 119, 126, 127 9 921
yov Hilde briefly reviewed the history of the utility sys teme in the
Village and informed those in attendance that the Council has two goals in
developirk the Village's fiscal policyi (1) to put the sewer and water
prosram.. n sound fiscal condi ion, and (2) to arrive at a fair manner of
raising the required funds from the various types of citizelr frpups within,
the Village. Funds have been raised from five sources: (1) a Z01 rate in-
crease in sewer and water service charges which taps the current user, (2)
the institution of a 6.76 mill ad valorem levy in 1972 whiff tap- everyone
in thk Village, (3) an',lncrease in the area charge which taps everyone with-
in an area served by trunk lines whether or not they have lateral service
to their property, (4) the institption of a REC charge which is equivalent
to an increase in the old sewer hookup charge and the addition for the
first time of a hooku charge for water which taps only those who become
current users, and (5S an interest rate spread of approximately 2 points
between the Village interest rates and that which the Village 1;harg,es
citizens.
Mona er Willis explained the purpose of the meeting was to provide the
public an opportunity to comment on pending assessments on the sewer and
water area and REG charges. More than a year ago when t,tie public imprnve-
ment hearitrg were held and again last Fall when the assessment h0arinas
were held for lateral, service and street restoration, tits. public was ad-
ised that the Council was in the process of studying both the operating
and capital programs of the utility systems and that area charges were
not to be assessed until that study was completed. The policy thi,t has
been adopted provides for both area and REC chanes for both sewer and
water and total $400 each. Ansi ;:i i zen who has previousl %)rereived an
area charge for sewer or rater will not be considered eligible to receive
another area charge. Manager Willis revieged the assessment procedure and
payment schedules for these assessments.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:30 p.m.
S ecia
October
gage Two
Counc1l
3, 1972
Meeting
Richard Berreth, 725 Ranchview lane, (Project No. 118) asked for further
explanation of his last year's assessment and the new assessment being
made at this time. 1t was exp,]*ined that the assessment la -4;t year was a
lateral charge, and the current asaesswent is the area charge whichgoes
to finance the wells, big pipes, etc. Mayor Hilde explained the REC is
normally to be paid at the time of hookup when the permit is taken out.
Because the area charges were delayed yet service was available :a-st year,
the Council is assessing the REC along with the ares charge because of
administrative problems. This approach offers an opp:rtuAity for a citieen
to finance this REC charge along with the area charge where in the future
it will have to be paid at permit time.
Leo Kruse, 12150 35th Avenue North. (Project No. 101) owns four small lots
with his home being gn one lot. Manager Willis explained the Council has
indicated a willingness to consider consolidations of lots in such in-
stances whine will enble a portion of the assessments to be abated if
such consolidation is,approved. Mr. Kruse was instructed to contact the
Village staff regardisuch an action.
Jack MIl ler, 152 South ," tza Building, appeared representing a group of
residents effected by Projects No. 126, 127 and 921 and asked for clari-
ficati'on on a number of matters. He was advised that any resident asses-
sed area charges for sewer and/or water prior to 1971 world not be asses-
sed again for area char9es. It is the present intention of the Cea ncil_
that the REC charge Sheol increase 8% per year in the future as compared
to some other communities who levy a new assessment when a new trunk or
interceptor is put 1n,
Attorney Miller questioned if 100% of the construction costs (including
oversiziog) are being assessed to the benefited parties or if any part
comes out of the Sinking Fund., Mayor Hilde pointed out that the only
time the Village could ever have a, measure of this would be at the very
first year. At this paint, there is no direct relationship between the
lateral project and what the Village is assessing for area type charges.
Pipes in the first projects were oversized and were for many more people
than were directly assessed at that time. Councilman Hunt pointed out
ttat the 6.76 mills is topayy the Metro $ewer debt service charge for
reserve capacity for PlIpmouth and that 1s the only part we pay out of ad
valorem taxes. The very last project to connect to an interceptor will
pay more than the actual cost of construction for the project because
they will have to pay a portion of the cost of the oversi=ing that took
place throughout the Village.
Attorney Miller asked what the interest rate was that the Village had
to pay to borrow the money for the projects under consideration tonight.
Mayor Wilde stated that again there is no direct relationship. Some of
these Oipes were paid for a couple years ago when tie Southwest sewer
and w4ter was put in. The actual construction costs that the Village is
assessing an area type charge for really go back to day one when the
original sewer installation began in Plymouth. At the present time bonds
carry interest rates of between 4.1% and 6.7%, and the difference between
those interest rates paid by the Village and the rate charged to assess-
ment rolls accrues to the sinking fund for sewer and water debt.
I n
pecilal Couj cil Meeting
October 3. ,1972 r
gage Three
Attorney KIM* l * asked If any reconstruction'costs that the Village incurs
are assessed agalnst' the property owners. It was explained that if the
Village determines that a problem arises that is unforeseen, the costs are
added to the project by ch4nge order and are assessed; however, if it is
clear that the problem has`been,created by the contractor's negligence,
then the Village goes against'the contractor or his bonding company. The
Village is compelled to award a contract to the low bidder. As a conse-
quence, we sometimes get a contractor who cannot han4te the job or who
has.bid too low.
I
Attorney Biller asked if any part of the use charglt fon water goes to
hole pay off part of the capital improvement dept. Mayor Hilde explained
these are kept as separate accounts and that any mo4ey the Villagq can
take as a result, of a profitable operation goes intik the sinking fund.
Attorney Miller asked if there was an way the Council could relate our
use charges for sewer and water to other communitief;. Mayor Hildq stated
that Plymouth has always been in favorable comparison to other suburts.
Attorney Miller stated he felt the misunderstaneing on the part of the
residents he r-PrOvsents involved the fact that they did not understand
all they are ')eino assessed at the present time is $400 for water
rand
400 for sewer area and REC charges which thf.y have never been charged
before and that once this is paid, they willino t have to pay for sewer
and water again;.
Mayor Hilde briefl;; reviewed the recent activities of the Council with
regard to the Metropolitan Sewer Board's proposed SWC policy and urged
the residents to keep informed on the progress.
Tennis Heinien, 70 Kingsview Dane North, 'Project No:. 118) questioned
why 1/2 acre was the cut off point for minimum area charge. Councilman
Neils explained that costs are higher tolrun trunk lines through an area
of larger lots than through an urea of sjaallev lots. Mr. Heinzavi stated
teat approximately 2O% of his la.id is unrder water and did not feel it
air to be charged assessments for unbulldable land. The Council decided
they would review this matter to derterm,ne if it is buildable land.
Mrs. Vern Crowe, 610 Cottonwood Lane, (Project No. 119) stated approxi-
mately 3/4 of their land 1s a swamp and also unbuilda0le. The Council
wi 11 also study this situation to detetomi ne a fair solution,
Elroy M, Peterson, 1565 Evergreen Lane, (Project No. 121) stated he had
a double lot situation where his house is on one lot and the garage on
the other,, It was suggested Fir. Peter,son investigate the possibilitlr of
combining his lots,
I
Myrtle Buemke, 3435 Jonquil L-%ne, (Project No. 101) questioned why she
was being charged an interest rate of IOC. It was explained that the
assessment covered not only the year 1972 but also that portion of the
year previous subsequent to adoption of the assessment rolls. The yearly
interest rate is only 8t, Mrs. Ou imNe gtaestianed why they shoild be re-
quired to pay the REC charge and inti:rest if taey oo r hook up for a
number of years. Mayor Oilde explained that ordindnee requires that a
residen' must hook up within 24 months fronm the frir;t of the year following
t:
C
al C
e Fo r
tine ime .
however,
I 4 no
I
esident
N
nci 1
31,972
when i
if a re
nec"-s
oav,43
Fred Rafner,
total' 1/2 ac
explore the
involved for
J
Js avai lablee In the case of water, t,, is 30 months;
i cent car, provide proof that their we), water is pure,
lir'-# that they hook Jup. It is still req ired that the
060 ger quarter, As water avai 1 "i 11 ty harge,
F12 Jon ail Lane,, (Pooject No. 101),stated his two lots
and tha.his hose U on both lots. It was suggested he
ssib4lityicon*olilating the 'lots, and the procedures
he consolidt ion an abatement of assessment* were explai,oed.
Gladys Ripp 2610 West, Medici a lake Drive, f Pro4ect No. 11126) questlontd
n • nyethechargesthatwouldapplyt t air a,.rfa5e, a, she was directed to
the. Special Asse4sments Clerk v'rl these figures.
qMrs. Ldwar/i Sel!"V 11835 28th 00jia North. (Project No, 126) stated, they
have one ot with'rp buildings,, nd'two sewer and water stubs wire put
in on one side which she conside s to`be o hbuildable. Kr,, Wi'I-is' said it
was his unae:tstanding that she hod req'i sted the stubs.;' Mrs. Sell was
dir.cted to the Engineering Department td resolve the matter.
William Porter, 1125 Forestview ,t.ane, (Proj;cz No. 127) stated he was
told at Village H.411 that 'nis *;kat year's a-sessment of $3,248 bad to be
paid by July of ls,7 in order to avoid a 12s',i,tterest charge. the Council
directed the . staf- to cnec:k into this. mi suodp bst;.ndinq,
I
1
Wiggo 0, Piet,ir, 217 Plneview Lape North, (Project No, 119) asked the
deadline for hooking up to the ib4::er and water, and this was explaWed
to him,
0. J. Loing, 830 Ithaca Lane, Project No. 118) ol ked for clarification
on the consolidation of lots, At was explained that the Council will
approve the consolidation whanirer it appears to make good sense to do
so. Mr. Loing also questioned how townhouses are assessed. It was ex%
plained that acreage chargeal'iays remains the same except in the case
of commercial and industrial lAses and that a REC charge would be asses-
sed against ea1,h unit of a townhouse,
Norman Torriscn, 12910 27th Avenue Urth, (Project No. 126) questitn.ed
the veason the assessment chaige,s were more than doubled in one year's
time, and Mayor Hilde explained to h4m the studthe village has under-
taken during the past year wh! ch brougtht about t1i s nPw assessment policy.
Mr. Torrison state4 it was thi:ir understanding last year when they wore
charged 1201 of construction .osts on'their pro,iect that they would re-
ceive some consideration for.this 21% charge when the area charge w4s
levied, i
Dale W, Johnson, 11310 County Road 15,.(Proj-ect No. 118) stated his 9
acre• parcel was ipproximatel, 40% or 5(% low land and unbui1dable, He
stated he felt the most that could be developed on the land is four lots,
The Council will study this s'tuation to determine a fair solution,
Louis Kell. 3GS Deerwood Lane, (Project "lo, 119) stated he recalled. being
told at c. -ie assessment hearings, for the laterals that the area charge
would be only $175, Mayor Hilde explained that no figures were ever
i
Sptcial Council Meeting`
October 3, 1912 l
Page Five
gyoted. Mr. Keil asked if c0 , v,`:.users ar going to be assessed for the
nOw wells that are proposed. Mayor Ht'rd&,-explained they will be paid for
by future assessments on new users and sery ce, :,,-h*ries e
Harry C. Bauer, 11625 28th Avenue North, (P oject No. 126)"sesc,ribed several
problems they have had with construction in their a ea and state Where
Kos too mich work being done two and three times over.
Gee,rge Hoyt, 2635 Sycamore Lane, (Project NO, 125) stated he',did not feel
it was fair to char;e current users higher Wates than those i'n past years
plus the qew REC charge for water,
Thomas J. Keefe, 4635 West Medicine Lake Drive, (Projects No. 126, 127 a
921) asked how he could escape having the total assessment placed on the
tax rolls if a consolidation is approved. It was explain*d that the
consolidations will be processed ,,.s quickly u; possible, but that it will
probably take 30 days.
Ron Kuechle, 1130 Forestview Lane, (Project No. :19) asked 1f the plumber
will have to pay the fee of approximately $80 at the time the permit is
taken out in addition to tke REC. It was explained this $80 fee is for
the meter.
John Hagen, 515 Harbor Lane, (Project No. 118) stated, he has 2.38 acres
of land which has no access and cannot be developed. The Council will
investigate this situation.
Marvin Larson, 1305 North Ives Lana, (Project No. 127) stated he had one
lot which ht considers to be unbui'idable. Tie. Council will examine this
further to determine a fair solution.
Richard Schmidt, 120"30 23rd Avenue 'forth, (Project No. 126) asked for
clarification of the relationship between construction costs and assess-
ments. It was explained that there is a relationship between lateral
costs and lateral assessments but no direct relationsh'p between area type
costs And area t1pe assessments. Mr. Schmidt stated he had four lots,
each r, which individually is unbulldable. 'It was suggested he investi-
gate consolidation. Mr. Schmidt asked if the 5% price freeze affected
the Village, and hi was told it did not%
Ron J. Weber, 505 Landwood Lane, (Project No. 118) lives on a one acre
parcel and questioned why the assessment was double the half acre lot.
It was explained the cosi; of running trunks through an area of larger
lots is greater than running through an area of small lots.
Curtis G. Carlson, 335 Zinnia Lane, (Project No. 119) asked if residents
will have an option as to the length of t;me for financing of these char-
ges. He was advised the Council will be Cq.eiding this on Friday evening,
Mr. Carlson asked what the total assessmene, was for these proposed area
charges, and he was told it is $1,471.822.1L. of which $381,3?5 are REC
charges.
Dennis Heinzen, 70 Kingsview Lane, (Project oto. 118) previously asked the
Council to look at his property to determine if portions of it are build-
able and asked how he would know the results of this study. He was advised
the stuff would either relay the information to him by phone or letter.
j
1
Special Council Neeti,ng
October 39 1972
Page Six
John Hagen,'515 Harbor ?,ane, (Project No. 118) asked why the small area
West of I494 was excluded from the assessment. He was adivsed that when
lateral service is extended to this area. they will be assessed area
charges also. Mr. Hagen pointed out the area to the South within the
project area does not have lateral service either.
The Ft;blit' Hearing was closed at 10:25 p.m.
There followed discussion regarding the possibility of splitting the
rolls for area and REC charges and also the assessing of the REC at this
time. It was decided to wait until after Wednesday night's meeting to
get a better reading of citizens desires in this regard.
Mayor Hilde adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.mo
5anara L. Haugen
Y, llage Clerk
n
If'