10/11/1961 - 0002380533
RESOLUTION N0. 173-1967. COiVFIRMING AS5ESSMEIIT ROLi, - ST, 1959-1:
Motion by Nee to adopt the above resolution as amended�, i,he south sic�e of 572 Avenue
paying 1/!� of cost. Seconded by Wo1ke. Upon a voice vcte� there being na nays'
the motion carried unanimousl,y.
�'iDJOURNI�IENT:
There being no further business� the Ma,yor declared the me�ting ad�ournecis
� Re �ectfully submitt�l:
' /
/��-�/ �:�71,�� ���L'���
Gfi�PidblyfPl�1; SaTiie7.sc�
Acting Secretar,y to the Council
�
�
SPECIAL COI1NCiL MEETING - OCTpBER 11� 196Z
���
}4AYOR � T. E, Greig
A special meeting of the City Couneil was called to ardWr by Acting Mayor Wo7.!te ai.
8:p7 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members PrFSent:
Members Absent:
Nee� Johansona Wolke
Greig� Sheridan (arrived at 1G:15 P,B�.)
PUB�IC HEARI1vG - ASSESSMENT ROLL - ST. 1Q6Q-�2:
Acting Mayor described the area o£ this imgrovemer_t� also stated thP estimated costs
and actual costs of same, Mr. Palermo� 59�9 Haclanaran Avenue was present and asked
questions pertai.ning to Haclnnann, which were the same as he had a�ked at the hearing
on Qctober 3' 1961. He asked if the $�1'65p.00 allawed �y the City for Hackm�u�si
had been subtracted when computing the rate per foai. on tk�s improvement„ He was
told that it had, and that the rate was $1t.18 per £rcnt f�ot. He aZso st.ated agair_
that the petition stated the asseesment was payable on a 10 year basisx asuui askeci
why it is set up for 5 years, Mr. Kohlan stated that the petition read noi: to
exceed lU years� and the City feels that it ia more feas�.ble to spread it on a 5
year basis ior both the City and the ta�ayers„ because of the intere�t involved.
Mr. Palermo stated that he was embarrassed because cf' the faat that he had tald the
t�eople in the area that the rate of cost xonld Ue abont �2,25 -�2,50 and spread
on a 10 year basis} and noir the rate is �1t.18 per foot' and on a 5,year basis. Mr.
Brunsell got the petition, and it did conform to Mr. Palermo�s statemer.�. Mr. Kohlar.
stated that he does not e�ractly know how the �2,K0 rate was arrived at' but that
on a unit basis� both sides of the street, the rate was �5•30s and that perhaps
this had been divided in half to arrive at �2,50. Mr, Comstock� Consulting Eng3neex�
explained that there were two bids taken on this improvement� and the contract was
awarded� b%t at tha7 t�e 66th and Able� north o£ M�ssi_ssippi was not included.
61z Way and Brookview were deleted from the contract, and at the reque�t of Erco� Inc.a
Able and 66th were added to the contract by change order. Mr. Coristock referred
to a letter of September 20� 1960a where the Figures indicated that the rate per
foot would be $3,86. Aci.ing Mayor Wolke suggested t,hat due ta the error pertairxing
to Haclaiaruz� and the �2.50 rate charge' that the Counc�l go along with the A"3.Sh
per fovt figure. Motion by Johanson to 9.ncrease the City sYiare to 3�2��LGb.00� anei use
the �3.68 per foot rate ior Haclanann. Seeonded by 1Vee. Upon a voi.ae votea there
being no nays, the motion carried iananimously.
� Mr. Christie, 5930 Hackmann Avenue, asked if the contractor musr complete the work
by a certain campletion date� and if not is there a penalty. Mr. Wo1ke stated that
they do have a completian daYe, but that a contractor cannot be pushed on this, as
they would take this into consideration when making their bid and would increase it.
Mr. Comstock stated that it is very difficult to make a close estimate during the
preliminary stages of improvement, also that interest is a factar. Mx. Mann stated
that there is difficulty with the interest, being that it was late in the fa11, Che
final price could not be determined, and therefore, a long period of snterest resulted,
��
Estimates on this are very difficult. Mr. Wo1ke stated that once the work is started
on an improvement, there are certain monies that must be paid out, contractors, engineering,
etc � question was asked as to how long an asphalt street lasts. It was stated that
the curbing and stree6 was poor in this area, and an example was given of the contractor
damaging some curbing himself, and was asked to repair it, and would not do so. Mr.
Johanson stated that the City is hoping to change the curbing to concrete, that asphalt
was good at the time, but now concrete is being considered for future specifications.
The address of the curbing on Hackmann that the contractor would not repair is 5914
Hackmann. Mr. C. E. Hoglumd, 5829 Hackmann, asked why they had gotten less, when they were
supposed to have 2 inches of surfacing. Mr. Knutson of Comstock & Davis, Inc., stated
that the City standard is 4 inch base, and 1z inch of hot-mix, and that a number of tests
were taken, and were unable to find anything less. Mr. Hoglund stated that he has found
where it is only 3/4 inch. He then compared the asphalt price with concrete price. He �
stated that he had talked with a contractor doing work in St, Anthony, and that the price
they were getting on concrete was much better in camparison to what they were getting on
asphalt. Mr. Comstock stated that he knows that the chaxge for concrete in St. Anthony
is in excess of $15.00 per foot. Mr. Bell, Tax Agent for the Great Northern Railway
stated that the City had assessed them $48.60 for Lot 3, B1ock 19, Fridley Park Addition,
which the Great Northern had given to the City. At this point, Mr. Palermo thanked
the Council for their consideration in the matter of Hackmann. Mrs. Archie Ives, 5810
Hackmann asked when repairs will be made. Mr. Comstock stated that they have a list of
camplaints, and the contractor has 10 days, and if there is nothing done, action will be
taken against the bonding company. This contractor has been operating on promises the
past 6 to 8 weeks, Mrs. Ives asked about the lower part of the street, that the p6t holes
were bad. This apparently is another contractor, in this area near the junction of
Central Avenue, Motion by Nee to close the hearing. Mr. Johanson seconded the motion.
Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - ASSESSMENT ROLL - S&55�624 - SANITARY SEWER TRUNK LINES:
Mr. Comstock, Consulting Engineer, pointed out on a map the interceptor lines, and the
area boundary lines of the benefited area for this improvement. He also described the
area. It was stated that_the area other than the properties south of Rice Creek that
have been previously assessed on this Interceptor System would he charged 45� per 100
square feet at this time. This assessment for this area wi11 not cover the total cost,
therefore the deficit will have to be made up by UCility funds, or some other method.
This policy was set up in 1955. Mr. Flannery, 1465 Onandago, asked what are the lines '
that run on Onandago, The answer aas that these lines were in Pro7ect"iF48, and the
sewer and water assessments wi11 not be levied at this time, Mr. Flannery asked if the;�
would have to pay twice? The laterals are chaYged 100% according to benefits, Mr. E,L.
Hagner, 1245 Norton asked about his property in connection with this improvement. It
was stated that his property was not included in this. Mr. Peterson� attorney for
School District f�16, asked how the 45fi per square foot was arrived at. Mr. Wo1ke
explained that Sanitary Sewer charges started at $1.02, that the south area was assessed
54� per 100 square foot in 1954, the north end of City - 25G for partial, the increase
of costs brings this up to 70� per 100 square foot, with a credit of 25�, which brings
the present figure to 45p. Mr. Peterson asked uf the school district had been assessed
before for the /�5�, and the answer was"'yes". Mr. Nee stated that the City will have
to stand the deficit, being that the assessments will not cover all of the costs. Mr.
Peterson asked about the area to be assessed, which was explained to him. He stated
that School District �k16 feels that this is unreasonable, arbitrary, excessive. The
costs are not feasible - too much. The sanitary sewer assessed in square feet - t�ey
have 6 acres, and being that the school district is being assessed on the same basis as
the other properties, he felt that this was incorrect, and that the school district
should be assessed differently. He stated that he would like a transcript of the minutes,
in order to appeal. Mr. Peterson stated that since the school property is used in a
different way than other properties, he felt that it should be assessed on a d�fferent
basis, Mr. Wolke stated that this is the method of assessment, and the Council cannot
make exceptions.� Mr. Kohlan stated that this assessment is not for immediate serviCe
to school property, and that it is a portion of the cost of the overall interceptor
system. The assessment is based on the nitimate benefit to all, and exceptions cannot
be made in special cases. System is to 6e installed, and all must share the cost, and '
the assessments are spread as to benefited people. Motion by Nee to receive the letter
from Madsen relative to 5&SS�k24. Seconded by Johanson. Upon a voice vote, there bein�
no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Motion by Nee to close the hearing on S&SS�k24
Trunk Sewer Lines portian of hearing. Seconded by Johanson. Upon a voice vote, there
being no nays, the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - ASSESSMENT ROLL - 5&SS�k24 - SEWER LATERALS:
Mr. Wolke opened the hearing, and asked if there were any ohjectors. Mr. Vi Nage1 asked
if the assessments were based on the lineal foot� His property is Parcel 3150. Mr.
Brunsell stated that the rate is $7.24 per foot for property abutting on this 1ine, not
35
including service connection. Service connections are charged at cost to the 11
properties that have it, on1y. Motion by Nee to close the hearing on Laterals -
5&SS�k24�. Seconded by Johanson, Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the
motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - ASSESSMENT ROLL-S&SSi�24 - STORM SEWER:
Mr. Wolke opened the hearing on the storm sewer portion of this pro�ect. He stated
that the rate is $1.87 per 100 square feet, and the entire cost would be assessed.
This item will be deferred for future study, and a new method of assessment. Mr.
Comstock described the area and pointed out same on a map. He explained that a11 the
pipes are 24 inches and larger, and that there are no catch basins and no laterals.
� This storm sewer installation was constructed to lower the water table and insure
better c'onditions for lateral installation etc, in the future. There was a question
as to Norton Avenue in reiation to this improvement. Mr. Comstock explained this
situation. Mr. Peterson, School District -0k16, asked xf this is an iartnediate benefit?
Mr. Kohlan stated that it is on the same basis as that of the south area, there was
and is no immediate benefit, but it is basically put in for the future. He explained
that this must be assessed on an area basis, as a11 the properties wi11 benefit, and
that this is the start of an overall development, He stated that from the interceptor
lines, extensions and laterals will be constructed. The lines are of reasonable depth
to take care of surface water, which will less expensive water and sewer installations
at a later date. Some of this area is swampy and not useable, and this improvement
should solve this. Mr, Flannery, 1465 Onandago said that he feels that this is
abuse to the property owners, and not benefit. He ob�ects. He said there is no
swampy area. It was then stated that it depends where your property is located.
Mr. Kohlan stated that he has recommended deferring action on this. Mr. Wo1ke
read an excerpt from the minutes of May 3, 1960 in regard to this. Mr. Flannery
stated that there is no road. Mr. Brunsell explained the situation on Bacon Drive.
Mr. Nee stated that no one wanted the sewer and water, so the Council did not push it.
Mr. Flannery stated that the City has giVen them nothing. Mr. Nee stzted that they
could have sewer if they wanted it. Mr. Johanson stated that the City could not get the
road right-of-way in the Bacon Drive area. Mr. Peterson, School District ��16, asked
how the $1.87.figure was�derived at for this assessment. Mr. Brunsell explained
this to Mr, Peterson. Mr. Peterson then asked i�f any property was left off, and the
answer was that the State Highway Department property was. Mr, Kohlan stated that
this part of the pro�ect is subject to review, Mr, Peterson then stated that he
, feels that this assessment is unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary, excessive, and that
there-i5 no ium�ediate necessity for it. He strongly objects. Mr. Wo1ke stated
that interest wi11 be a factor in this, if the assessment is held up. Mr. Ralph
Lynn, University and Osborne Road asked about his property, and that he is assessed
$700.00 for storm sewer, he has about 1 acre. He feels that he is not getting that
much benefit out of this storm sewer. Mr. Olson, 7640 Lakeside, asked about the
storm sewer and why it was located along here. What benefit wi11 he get from this. He
was told that he will receive tl�e same benefit as all others in this area, and that he i�
assessed for his share in the main, nothing else. He asked how the assessments could
be paid. He was told that they are spread on a 20 year basis, but that he could
pay them any time, and if he did within the 30 days, there would be no interest
charge. Motion by Nee to close this storm sewer portion of the hearing on S&S51k24,
until a future date, with the people 6eing notified as to the hearing date. Seconded
by Sohanson. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously.
There was a question asked whether the City would be sending out bi11s for this
assessment, and they were informed that this would entail a great deal of clerical
work, so that if they wanted to pay them up instead oF spreading them out 20 years,
they could call the city offices for the amount and come in and pay them at their
convenience. There would be no interest charge within the 30 days after the date
of the resolution confirming the assessment ro11.
PUBLIC HEARING - ASSESSMENT ROLL - W-34:
Mr. Wolke opened the hearing on this assessment ro11. Mr. Comstock explained the
� area invoZved, also that the estimated cost was $2,234,200, and later a revised estimated
cost of $2,084,000. Seven contracts have been let, and 5 or 6 more to let before
_ completion of this project. Mn. Comstock listed the various items making up W-34,
we11s, elevated storage tank, water treatment plant and large feeder mains, etc.
This project has two functions (1) To supply areas not serviced before with water
(2) Providing feeder lines north of Rine Creek. The main assessment rate is $,622
per 100 square feet; and the water lateral assessment is $4.39 per foot, plus cost
of services,where installed. These assessments will not cover the contract, and the
deficit will have to be made up by utility fund or general tax 1evy. The method
of the 2ssessment is on a 1- 10 year basis at 6% interest.
MAINS: There was an objector who stated that this installation helps no one, as
there are no houses in this area, Mr. Comstock stated that it is similar to the
installation of 5&SSi�24, that is to provide feeder lines for the city, which will
enable future lateral services, and assure fire protection in this area. The south
of Rice Creek portion of the City has been assessed for these mains, but the area
north of the Rice Creek has not. 48fi is the charge for mains (Rate set in 1954 plus
36
increases Yn costs to the present date). The question was asked whether this
was a partial assessment. Mr. Brunsell 6Cated that this is to complete the
water supply and distribution system, and that those to the north, who have not
paid their share of this pro�ect wi11 be assessed now, and no further assessments
on mains wi11 be levied. Mr. Peterson, School District ��16, stated that since
the 48G is the old figure, this is a 29.69 �/, increase of construction cost, and
asked how the .622 figure was arrived at, and also when was this 48� rate set up.
The answer was that the 48� was set up in 1954, and Mr. Brunsell explained the
formula for arriving at the .622 rate, which is in effect at the present time.
Mr, Peterson asked the total number of square feet in this area, and was any
property left out, It was stated that the Highway property was left out. Mt.
Brunsell gave Mr. Peterson the total cost figures, and also stated that the deficit
not covered by assessments would have to he made up from general taxes or utility
- funds. Mr. Peterson asked what $4.39 would raise? The answer was $227,823.53. '
This assessment is based on the $4.39 plus the cost of service connections where
services have been put in. Mr. Kohlan stated again, that the benefits are in
excess of the assessments Ievied against the property owners. Mr. Peterson,
attorney £or School District ��16, stated that he would like to go on record as
ob�ecting to this formula. Mr. Srunsell stated that this formula is based on
information received from the United States Department of Commerce. Mr. Petarson
asked if there would be another hearing on this. Mr. Brunsell Stated "no", that
this formula will be used for the assessment ro11s.
Mr. Sheridan arrived at 10:15 P.M.
Mr. Peterson, attorney for School District #16, requested a copy of the �esolution
to prepare an appeal. /
Mr. Clarence Decker, 7715 Elm Street stated that he cannot get a building permit
to enlarge his home (18 X 25). There is a zoning of heavy industrial in this
area, and that is the reasou. Mr. Beightel, 7751 Elm Street stated that he has
the same pro6lem, and feels that he will receive no benefit from this assessment.
Mr. Grassini, Rice Creek Road asked what he is being assessed for. Mr. Brunsell
said that he is being assessed for the laterals in this project, He was previously
assessed for mains.
Mr. Zane Mann suggested that this assessment be referred to as the Central System �
Assessment, rather than main assessment. Mr. Comstock said that the assessments
are for those abutting on feeder lines, and will be using lateral service. Mr.
Lillimoen, 1583 Gardena, asked if he were being assessed now for this Central
System Assessment. He was told that he is not being assessed for this, but would
be assessed for the lateral.
Mr, Wolke suggested that Mr. Decker, 7715 E1m Street, speak to the City Manager
regarding building perm4t on his property.
Mrs. Lillimoen, 1583 Gardena, asked if it is a lateral or main line on Gardena.
It was stated that this is a Central System line, and she wi11 be chaxged for a
lateral assessment. At this point, T4r. Comstock explained the area again, con-
cerning the Central System assessment. Motion by Johanson to close the hearing
on W-34 mains. Seconded by Nee. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion
carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING ON LATERALS - 34-W:
Mr. Wagner explained the area involved in charging for laterals for W-34, People
that abut on these lines will be charged a lateral charge, and a11 have to pay
their share. $4.39 per foot plus construction of services. Mrs, I,illimoen, 1583
Gardena, on a corner lot which side would be assessed? She was told that she would
6e assessed just for frontage, assress side. Mts. Lillimoen as'�ced about the side
road in regard to sewer, water and street surfacing. At this point, Mr. Flannery
objected to water and sewer on his property, He is to talk with Mr. Wagner. Mr. �
Peterson, attorney for School District 9R16, asked how the figure $4.39 was
determined. Mr. Brunsell stated that this is the average cost on lateral-water
assessments, does not cover all, only about 25% covered. Mr. Peterson then stated
that he would like to go on record as stating that this has no relationship to
benefits received. Mr. Sheridan then stated that School District �k16 asked for
sewer and water, and requested the Council to push this. Mr. Peterson stated
the charge in Fridley was double what it is in other areas. Mr. Knalson, Super-
intendent of ��16, stated the position of the School District in this matter.
He stated that Spring Lake Park and Slaine assessments are much lower than Fridley's
and they have to protect everqone in their ➢istrict. Ne felt that all of the assessments
reZative to school propeety should be about the same, and they were iy,oC. Mr,
Johanson stated that different areas and condikions may be the reason why there
�
L._J
�
�
37
is a difference in assessments. Mr. Knalson stated that they understand what
the Council is trying to explain to them, but the people that they must relay
this information to, may not. Mr. Comstock stated that none of the water systems
are fully assessed. They are paid by (1) Assessments (2) Revenues (3) General Tax.
You cannot compare assessments in a11 areas, as each City or Village may have a
different basis on which to raise the money for these improvements, and you must
analyze a11 of the factors involved. A question was asked about the charges other
than lateral and main charges, such as hookup, meter, etc. Mr. Brunsell explained
this. Mr. Grassini, 1631 Rice Creek Road stated that the feeder line is on Stinson,
is a poxtion of the Central Supply System, and he had already been charged on his
frontage, and described his problem further. Mr. Wolke stated that he may have a
basis for deferral, and suggested that he write a letter to the Council for their
consideration. Mr. Peterson, School District �16, stated that they have a front-
age of 570 feet. Which side is the lateral2 Is it on psborne Road? Mr. Comstock
stated that the main is on Osborne Road, not on 3 sides. The main is on 1D0 square
foot basis, 76th is in a different project - Pro�ect 9�48. Mr. Peterson stated
that they get water from just one end. Mr. Bell, Great Northern Railway, asked when
this roll wi11 6e certified. He was toLd "tonight", and Chat they have 30 days
after this resolution is adopted to pay without interest charge. Motion by
Johanson to close the hearing. Seconded by Nee. Upon a voice voee, there being no
nays, the motion carried unanimously.
RESOLiITION N0. 174-1961 CONFIRMiNG ASSESSMENT ROLL - ST. 1960-1&2:
Motion by Nee to adopt the above resolution as amended and corrected. Seconded
by Johanson. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION N0. 175-1961 CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT ROLL - 5&SS�k24 - TRUNK SEWER LINES:
Motion by Johanson to adopt the resolution on Sanitary Sewer Trunk Lines-S&S54i24 as
amended and corrected. Seconded by Nee. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays,
the motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION N0. 176-1961 CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT ROLL - S&SSdk24 - SEWER LATERALS:
Motion by Nee to adopt the resolution on Sewer Laeerals - S&SS9�24 as amended and
corrected. Seconded by Sohanson. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the
motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, Acting Mayor Wo1ke declared the meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted:�
%u/ �-�hY-' �/��.���-�-�/
v"�i��tr-�r� aam€rsai�----
Acting Secretary to the Council
COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 17, 1961
� "�
\ � � ��, a
ACT NG MAYOR — Bernard Wolke
A regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Pro-tem Wolke
at 8:00 P.M,
ROLL CALL :
Members present; Johanson, Wolke, Nee
Members absent: Greig, Sheridan
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motion by Johanson to approve the minutes of the October 3, 1961 meeting. Seconded
6y Nee. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Johanson to approve the minutes of the October 10, 1961 meeting. Seconded
by Nee. IIpon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Nee to approve the minutes of the Octobez 11, 1961 meeting. Seconded by
Johanson. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESSc