HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 02-08-1975 SpecialPage 49 % W
1 p
MINU,T ES
SPECIA1 COUNCIL MEETING
February ,8, 1,975 11
A special meeting of the Plymouth City Council' was called to order'by Mayor Hi"l de
at 9 0 C A,11, In the Council Chambers ofthethe Public ;'corks Bui 1 dih4, 1490,0 Twenty-thirdAvenueNorth, on February' 8, 1975. ;
PRESENT: Mayor Hilde, Councilmen Hunt, Neils, Seibold and Spaeth, Manager Willis,
Engineer Goldberg, Consul ting ,Engi neer Olson,
ABSENT None.
Mayor Hilde indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to review the proposed
i ssessment policy on the Carlson Companies Addition, and, tine possibility of revising .
Oe present storm sewer assessment policy.
The Manager reviewed the status of the Council's cor.:1deration of a revised storm sewer,,,.
pol 1 cy as discussed at the special Council meeting of February S. Consulting Engineer -
Olson reviewed his recommendations as contained in his letter of December 11, 19740
The Council indicated that the progress made to date on an overall storm sewer policy
was good, but that for the purposes of the public hearing scheduled for February 10,
we should consider the present policy,
MOTION was made by Councilman Hunt, seconded by Councilman Spaeth, 'to accept the staff
direction to combine the twu projects (Project Nos, 306 and 416) and set the ratio of
2 to 1 between commercial;indu:trial property and residential property.
MOTION was made by Mayor Hi l de to amend the motion to change the fi qure to 24:1,
Motion failed.for lack of a second,
MOTION was made by Mayor Hilde, oeconded by Councilman Hunt, to amend the motion to
change the fi qure to 2:1. Motion failed, 2 - 3. Councilmen Nei is , Seibold and
Spaeth voted nay,
MOTION was made by Councilman Seibold to amend the motion to include a ratio of 1k
to 1 on multiples dwellings. Motion failed for lack of a second,
Motion carried, five ayes.
Following discussion concerning the run-off ratios, MOTION was made by Councilman Neils,
seconded by Counc,lman Spaeth, to dinect staff to prepare a policy resolution establishing
assessment ratios for commercial/industrial vs, single family residential at a ratio
of 2- to 1, including the following points: (1) although for general design purposes,
run-off coefficients, A and ,6 have been used, the nature of development in the City
of Plymouth is such that the A seems to be generally conservatively high for single
family residential, and that the ,6 a,pears to be conservatively low; (2) this ratio
is Rstablished not exclusively on the basis of de,, ign.,run-off coefficients, but rather
that development policies in Plymouth generally require retention and preservation of
49-
r
Special Cooncil, Neeting
February 8, 1915'
Page.3050
natural water courses in residential ard,:ts } whereas it permits significant dislocation
of these water courses in commerci al ii ndut t ri al areas, and therefore the latter
general l=, requires a greater investment. Motion carried,." r' ages . Councilman
Seiboi,d vyIted nay.
It
ROTION' ,was made by Councilman Hupt, secondad by Councilman Spaeth, that the. public
hears ng\, be. approached on the bash of the old s Corm sewer assessment policy. Motion
carrled o five ayes.
Coneern.Vig the: Carlson Companies. Addi tion pniject, the Council considered whett.br or
not parcels should be assessed as presently zoned or according to land use guide plan.
MOTION was made b Councilman Hunt, seconded by Councilman Neils, that the two
Humphrey parcels (3.6 and 10.4 acres within Project No. 416) be assessed on the basis
of the land Use Guide Plan inteR.ded use, but that the immediate assessment be levied
at the residential rate with the difference between the residential and the su'ggested
1 and use according to the Land Use Gut de P1 an bei ng assessed on a deferred; bast s not
to exceed five years or when development takes place, whichever occurs sooner. Motion
carried, five ayes .
The Council discussed the run-off ratios between varying types of land uses.,
Concern was expressed that multiple dwelling property may have higher run-off ratios
than sinrle family.
MOTION was made by Councilman Spaeth, seca:ded by Councilman Neils, that the staff
come back with ii policy to deal with residential storm sewer assessments based upon
the ratio cf single family vs. multiple rccsidential (04 and LA -3), along with the
new plan we are working on. btion carried, ,five ayes.
The Cocnci l discussed the propt+sed County koad 15 alignment and par,1.1 cul ,.,: ly the
manner in which the new and ole alignments would meet just east of the freeway,
MOTION was made by Councilman Neils, secondad by Councilman Hunt, tl,,at staff, i'n
working out these details with the County Highway repartmert, express and persuade
tc the extent practicable that jurisdiction to a Council position th,,:t new County
Poad 15 should be covitinued to the bridge at its ultimate urban section, and that,
Qi i -cony Road 15 be provided with a rural section junction that provides a safe.
intetiection. Motion carried, r=ive ayes.
The Council indicated that Berkshire lane, between present County Road 15 and proposed
County Road 15 not be connected, and that a gravel cul-de-sac or turn -around be
provided at thv ) rth end.
The Council directed that the staff prepare the public information hand-outs
for the public hearing consistent with the foregoing direction.
Consideration of Storm Sewer Asses,. A Polic
The Council Indicated that they wanted to continue their discussion of February 5
regarding a revised storm sewer assessment policy. Thev indicated that while they
were not prepared to adopt a new policy at this time, tnat substantial progress
was being made and that the staff should be provided further information and diivc-
t1on. one staff suggested that the Coun%.Il consider assessing storm sewer trunk
costs to the watershed, and that a po tion of those costs be derived from an ad
valorem levy.
v
special council Iteti ng
February 8, 1975
Page 51
MOTION was made by Councilman Hunt, seconded by Councilman Spaeth,,that the policy
for ad valorem be based on the four watershed districts, and that he assessment
rate be uniform within each individual district,
The Council indicated that the ad valorem levy would be accounted for by watershed
district, and that it would be possible that the storm sewer ad valorem levy could
vary between watershed districts,
Motion carried, four ayes. Councilman Neils voted nay,
MOTION was made by Councilman Hunt, seconded by Councilman Neils, to revise the
previous adopted motion by indicaOng that the ad valorem levy by watershed be
handled as part of the annual City budget each year, and that it would be based
upon the needs to meet the costs anticipated to 4e incurred, based upon the Capital
Improvement Program ;%,nd possible reserves for fuvurE needs. Motion carried, five ayes.
The use of ad valorem levies for trunk costs will require that 'he staff prepare and
update annually projected costs for trunks by'watershed, The staff reviewed the
following trunk benefit definition:
Trunk benefit is the value (cost) of storm sewer drainage facilities installed
within a watershed district less the lateral benefit attributable to each
of the sub -districts, Trunk storm sewer provide capacity designed to accommodate
accumulated run-off from throughout the district. The cost of such trunk
faci 1 i ti es is, therefore, deemed to benefit the entire watershed district.
Each watershed district shall be assessed for trunV, benefit based u on:
1) the cost attributable to trunk benefit within the watershed; (2 trunk
assessments shall be levied at the time lateral storm sewer improvements
are :made and assessed; (3) trunk assessment rates shall be adjusted as required
to reflect changes in the cost of storm sewer construction, i.e. Engineering
News Record Index,
MOTION was made by Councilman Neils, seconded by Councilman Hunt, to direct staff
to refine the policy read by Mr. Willis and bri r•g it back to the Council. Nmuti on
carried, fine ayes,
The staff suggested that the Council determine what amount of funding by watershed
district should be prodded from ad valorem funds. The staff recomrended 20% as a
reasonable contribution from a tax levy across the watershed,
MOTION was made by Councilman Hunt, seconded by Councilman Spaeth, that for the
purposes of preparing a storm sewer assessment policy and based upon the adopted
definition of trunk benefit, that the ad valorem participation by watershed district
be established at 20% of the estimated trunk costs in that district,
SUBSTITUTE MOTION was made by Councilman Neils, seconded by Councilmmi Spaeth, that
staff be directed tp recommend an ad valorem participation which may vary from
one watershed district to another, but should be restrained within the range of
20 - 40 percent for any particular watershed district, and that percen"'age partici-
ppati on be based on a study of major drainage works that cost of which rr .-got reasonably
he recovered by d1 vett assessment to the immediate area, and cons.i dere r, these major
drainage works within a five-year Capital Improvement Program, Ration (.,.rritd, five ayes,
Mayor Hi l de adjourned the meeting at 12:20 P J16
i