04-15-96 SCCCITY OF OTSEGO
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
HEARING
APRIL 15, 1996
6:30 PM
Mayor Norman F. Freske called the Hearing to order at 6:38 PM.
Roll Call: Mayor Norman F. Freske; Councilmembers: Suzanne Ackerman, Larry
Fournier, Vern Heidner. Absent: Councilmember Ron Black.
Staff: Andrew MacArthur, City Attorney; Larry Koshak, City Engineer; Elaine Beatty,
City Clerk/Zoning Administrator; Judy Hudson, Deputy Clerk.
Elaine Beatty stated the proper publishing and notice was completed.
Mr. MacArthur explained the City has already established a Storm Sewer Tax District.
In order to levy a tax the City must first propose a project and notice the property owner
what the levy is for the first year. Property owners are not able to appeal as they would
for an assessment. The residents input is taken and the City Council will consider whether
or not to go ahead with the project. If the Council does proceed, then they will establish
the levy. The issue of fairness of the levy is what the residents can bring up at this
Hearing. The only appeal under Statutes 728, an avenue a property owner can appeal levy
the if they feel it is illegal. The main issue is whether the City should go ahead with the
project.
Under a 444, the only requirement is that the levy be equitable, it must be fair to all the
people that are levied against, as long as it is near as possible to equity, it is fair.
Mr. MacArthur explained the Hearing procedure and to limit commits to two issues:
1. State if you want the project to go ahead.
2. State if you feel there are problems with the way the levy is done.
Mr. Koshak reviewed the historic problems with the Otsego Creek and ditch. He also
reviewed how the Otsego Creek Authority was established as a result of Albertville
expanding their waste water treatment plant and the issues involved with discharge into
the creek.
The City Engineer reported that nothing can be done in the channel without getting
permission through the DNR. This was done and was also limited by the DNR on what
could be removed. A program was developed, and there was some clean up done.
Public Hearing of April 15, 1996, cont'd. Page 2.
The main item to be addressed is in the section below the Section 30 Wetland. A wetland
that has caused problems in flooding. This was examined and found there was deficient
channel and culverts on 83rd Street and 8457 Mason Avenue. This was the primary
project to be considered and what is being talked about tonight.
The City Engineer went over the Feasibility Report dated February 20, 1996, using
overheads. Mr. Koshak displayed Exhibit A from the Feasibility Report, showing the
proposed structure replacement and creek channel enhancements. Next, was Table 2, from
the Feasibility Report, outlining the Estimated Project Costs, the Project Financing and
how levy was calculated. He pointed out that the levy can be changed each year and levy
must be set every year. The last item Mr. Koshak went over was the Project Schedule.
Floyd Goenner, 8013 Nashua Avenue. He stated he is opposed to this project.
His question why was the strip south of 83rd Street being cleaned out again? Questioned
the 25% overhead. Regarding the culverts across 83rd Street, replaced twice - Township
had a Road and Bridge Fund, what happen to this Fund? Can't see where there would be
an increase in market value of land. Mr. Goenner asked the Council to cancel the project
since he doesn't see a benefit from it.
Response
Mr. Koshak said if there is a part of the creek that doesn't need to be cleaned out, then
nothing would be done. The 25% overhead is for the feasibility study, engineering,
administration, preparing the levy and the project.
The Council explained the Road and Bridge Fund was a typical fund for a Township.
It is now in the General Fund but designated for Streets and Roads. They also discussed
the reason the watershed districts were established.
Mike Bistodeau, 7933 LaBeaux Avenue. Stated he is opposed to the project.
His comments were the existing creek is currently taking water and why should we
improve just to take on Albertville's water? Asked if this expansion is short term?
Response
The Mayor explained this project is the result of three residents coming to the City
because they had water problems. Otsego had an agreement with Albertville several years
ago and nothing was done. The Council said if Albertville increases their discharge to a
certain amount, they will then have to discharge to the Crow River. The City Engineer
explained the primary concern in the discharge is the water quality and the role of the
DNR in all of this.
Public Hearing of April 15, 1996, cont'd. Page 3.
Arlan Middleton, 6466 Jalger Avenue. Spoke against the proposed project.
His concerns and comments were regarding Monticello Township. He felt that Monticello
Township should be brought into this since a lot of his watershed comes from them.
Objects to projects because it will not help his flow, the interstate stops his flow.
Response
Mr. Koshak went over the history of why Frankfort and Monticello Townships were not
brought into the Authority and also how they could if the four communities banded
together. Mr. MacArthur explained how this could be done. the Council said that the
Otsego Authority felt that when develop occurs in that area, then Monticello Township
could be approached.
Judy Vetsch, 8490 LaBeaux Avenue.
Her question was if the project is dropped, will it be dropped forever?
Response
The Council said it would be dropped, but the citizens could petition for one. The
feasibility study could be used again unless there are a lot of changes that have occurred or
costs increased.
Virginia Wendel, 9357 65th Street. Spoke in opposition to the project.
Asked if they could pay off the levy?
Response
Andrew MacArthur said it couldn't be paid off because it is a levy. The levy is based on
market value and could fluctuate yearly.
Archie Lindenfelser, 7971 Jalger Avenue. Spoke in opposition of the project.
He submitted Exhibit A and read this letter dated April 13, 1996, which included the
following questions:
1. What is the impact to the township in the surrounding area if this proposed
project is not completed?
2. What are the driving factors for performing these improvements?
3. Assuming that these factors are real what is the probability of these occurring?
Mr. Lindenfelser said he can't justify spending $84,000 on solving a non -problem and to
consider abandoning this project.
Response
Mr. Koshak replied on the culvert on 83rd Street, the street will be washed out which
affect services. The motive is to regulate and manage the water in the creek.
Mr. Koshak also added that there has been evidence of flooding.
Public Hearing of April 15, 1996, cont'd. Page 4.
Ed Greninger, 13108 70th Street. He spoke in opposition of the project.
He was concern with losing his rights as a property owner of what is done on the creek.
He has maintained his own part of the creek and spent a lot of money and is now upset
the residents have to pay money for water coming from Albertville and Frankfort.
Response
Mr. Koshak stated easements will be obtained from the residents if needed.
Will Duerr, 11230 70th Street.
He feels that Albertville is getting a free ride. He asked if Albertville runs their ditch to
the crow, where will the water runoff go.
Response
Larry Koshak said the discharge from the treatment plant would eventually go to the
Crow but that would not include their stormwater run-off.
Lloyd Beaudry, 80th Street. He spoke in opposition to the project.
His concern was if this project is done, will another one be done? He was one of the
farmers that did clean out in 1981, water just sits there now. He can't see spending
$84,000 and saving only a few acres.
Res en nse"
Mr. Koshak said this only applies to the main channel. The council pointed out the
biggest cost are the culverts and the work that the authority did previously.
Mark Berning, 80th Street. Spoke in opposition of the project.
He stated the culvert in 83rd Street hasn't been in that long and shouldn't be a cost to the
residents.
Eugene Goenner, 12867 83rd Street. He opposes the proposed project.
Mr. Goenner asked if the culvert on 83rd Street was considered full at the time of
evaluation and markings. He asked what was the over-all increase rate. Where was the
major backup? Asked about using a steel culvert and also about the engineering costs.
Response_
Mr. Koshak stated the culvert was not full. There are conditions down the stream that
restrict the flow. He didn't have the over-all increase rate with him but offered to look it
up if he wanted it. The major backup is partly on 83rd street area and in proceeding
north of that. The decision made by the Council was to use a metal culvert and his chart is
showing concrete and he will correct. The culvert would be long enough to accommodate
future street updates. The 25% over head costs are for administration, legal and engineer.
$16,942 were spent by the City thru the Otsego Creek Authority previously.
Public Hearing of April 15, 1996, cont'd. Page 5.
Don Praught, 12786 60th Street.
He asked if the City can over rule the DNR and approach them to let the residents take
care of the creek property to the North and he thought that some of the rules have
changed.
Response
Mr. Koshak said originally we could have done that and lower some levels that could
benefit some property owners but that can't be done now and just the wetland rules have
changed. Mayor Freske explained when Albertville was expanding their treatment plant
the MPCA gave them a permit and Otsego tried to appeal but they didn't give much
attention to the farm land.
Mike Bistodeau, 7993 LaBeaux Avenue.
He asked if the project isn't done, and there would be flooding next spring, the road is
washed out, where does the money come from to fix it. If at that time the culvert is
replaced, would the whole City get assessed.
Res on nse"
Andrew MacArthur said the money would come out of the general fund. This is the
reason why the watershed districts were established to give many different options.
The Engineer said it could be possible that the whole City could get assessed.
Floyd Goenner, 8013 Nashua Avenue.
He asked if Albertville expands their sewer plant, how long would it take before they have
to discharge to another source. Also, how long before it would get silt -up again after the
project.
Response
CM Heidner thought they could double their capacity. Mr. Koshak explained that they
can only dump so many pounds of pollinates into the lake, then they have to do more
treatment and the costs would be so great that it would be more feasible to discharge
another way. Mr. Koshak explained there would have to have a maintenance fund
established to get it maintained.
Richard Garner, 95th Street. He stated he is opposed to the project.
He stated the City should not do a project just because a few people wanted it.
He also asked about why they can't appeal. He also suggested alternative methods like
pumping the water. He also questioned the fairness of the tax levy and should be divided
equally and not levy more on some parcels.
Response
Mayor Freske explained that is why a Public Hearing is held to receive input from the
Public. Mr. MacArthur said the tax levy can't be appealed but here at this Public Hearing
to determine if the project should go.
Public Hearing of April 15, 1996, cont'd. Page 6.
Mayor Freske stated the above item will be on the City Council Agenda for April 22,
1996, 6:30 PM.
CM Fournier motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by CM Heidner. All
in favor. Motion carried.
(Discussion occurred between the motion being made and the actual vote)
Discussion: CM Fournier commented in 1994 citizens were being flooded and this is the
way we could help. He said his decision will be based on the comments received at this
Public Hearing.
Hearing adjourned at 8:05 PM.
Break
Mayor Freske opened the Public Hearing at 8:25 PM.
Elaine Beatty stated the proper publication was done.
The City Attorney, Andrew MacArthur stated the purpose is to give Otsego different
options for improvements allowing a tax assessment and it is also a basis for stormwater
impact fees. The purpose of the Hearing is to get public comment whether the district
should be established. Once the district is established and if a project is needed, then the
City would follow a process like the previous hearing.
Larry Koshak displayed an overhead showing the boundaries for the Northwest Watershed
District.
Don Greningner, Kadler Avenue. Spoke in opposition of establishing district.
He stated the main part of this watershed flows through his land and he has spent money
cleaning this out. No one has problems and this would only cost him money. He thought
this would be worthless establishing the district.
Response
Mayor Freske said the City has had any problems or complaints and no project has been
proposed, therefore no tax levy.
Public Hearing of April 15, 1996, cont'd. Page 7.
Mark Berning, he owns a house in Island View Estates. He spoke against establishing the
district.
He stated he doesn't see a reason for establishing this. Most of the water from Island
View goes to the river. If there is a problem in the future it is because of people breaking
up field tiles and not replacing them. Land to the south of Island View, there is already a
hole there and water sits in there most of the time and will eventually become a wetland.
CM Heidner motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by CM Ackerman.
All in favor. Motion carried.
CM Fournier motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by CM Ackerman. All in
favor. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:35 PM.
Mayor Norman F. Freske
r
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Ad strator
rde b • Judy Hudson, Deputy Clerk
City Seal