Loading...
10. Accept Lake Lucy Road Watermain Study and Call for Public Hearing II . CITY OF -- 1 \'''' I'Ll CHANHASSEN 1 , , - ...,' ,_a- ^ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937-1900 I MEMORANDUM :t e TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager f2%3/ r IFROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer DATE: December 9 , 1988 • ISUBJ: Accept Lake Lucy Road Trunk Watermain Feasibility Study, Call for a Public Hearing and Authorize Preparation of I Plans and Specifications File No. 88-25 I Attached is the feasibility study for the Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain as authorized by the City Council July 11 , 1988 and prepared by the engineering firm of Westwood Professional Services Group. The report is very comprehensive and has taken a I little longer to prepare than normal due to the extra effort which has been exerted to identify the construction impacts and financing scenarios for the Lake Lucy Road area. Actual cross- ' sections were prepared by the consultant along the proposed trunk watermain route to more accurately identify and quantify the construction challenges and impacts of the alternatives. I The report and attached staff report dated July 11 , 1988 more than adequately summarizes the history and importance of this trunk watermain connection. I will not say any more here except Ito reiterate that our water system demands are not shrinking with time and are obviously continuing to grow at a rapid pace as testified by the upcoming addition of another major water user in I our industrial park, i .e. Rosemount, Inc. , with I am sure others to follow. The impetus for this project has been and is a "trunk" improvement. As such , no provisions for any lateral con- nections outside of the MUSA zone are provided. IThe Lake Lucy Road area is a unique area. Not only from a construction standpoint, but also from an assessment standpoint I and project funding standpoint. Our initial thoughts on funding for this project were to utilize water expansion fund proceeds (Fund 402 ) to cover a large portion of the expense. The cash balance in this fund as of October 31, 1988 is $315 ,00 0.. The I preferred construction alternate is estimated to cost $432 ,590 . The shortfall obviously would have to be made up via assessments. To deplete this fund significantly in light of the additional Isystem maintenance and improvements which need to be taken care I 1 Don Ashworth December 9 , 1988 Page 2 of such as the downtown elevated tank painting and maintenance (estimated cost $100 , 000 ) and installation of Well No. 5 in 1990 has resulted in us looking at other alternatives for funding of the trunk watermain project. Fortunately, the City issued general obligation bonds in 1986 for trunk system improvements for which the Powers Boulevard and Kerber Boulevard trunk watermains were installed and the 3 .5 million gallon ground storage reservoir was also constructed. Due to the favorable bids which were received on all of these projects the fund presently carries a balance of over $550 ,000 . State Statutes Section 475 .65 allows any balance of the proceeds of a bond issue remaining after the use is accomplished may be devoted to any other public use authorized by law and approved by adopted resolution. If not utilized, these funds would become a part of the debt service fund. The feasibility study presents two options -for financing the pro- 1 ject. Alternate A addresses applying the City ' s standard assessment policies for assessing lateral benefit and trunk con- nection charges . With the majority of the properties along Lake Lucy Road not included in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) the assessment policy becomes very confusing and perhaps difficult to defend not only legally but politically since these properties cannot subdivide beyond the 1 per 10/2 . 5 acre minimum criteria. Based on Council discussion from the July 11, 1988 meeting, financing Alternative B was prepared which reflects the total deferment of lateral and trunk assessments and the use of the balance of proceeds from the bonds of 1986 to pay for the pro- ject. Since assessments would eventually be collected for the lateral benefit associated with the properties along Lake Lucy Road, a public hearing would be necessary . An assessment policy unique to this "split" MUSA area will be developed as a part of the public hearing process to address issues such as what proper- ties, if any, should be required to connect to the system at this time, the lateral benefit costs; the responsibility for tun- nelling under Lake Lucy Road if required for the connections; the exemption of this area from the City ' s standard water billing policy; the timing of the assessments (deferments) ; and other related and necessary considerations. Since this financing alternative pledges funding of the project from bonds of 1986 proceeds, the public hearing and assessment matters mentioned above can be dealt with over the next month or two and do not need to delay the initiation of design for this project. The schedule presented in the feasibility study reflects awarding I a contract for these improvements by March 13 , 1989 with construction complete and the trunk watermain in service by our peak demand service month starting in July, 1989 . I believe this 1 . ' Don Ashworth December 9 , 1988 Page 3 will go a long way to helping us meet our upcoming water needs in ' 1989 if this schedule is adhered to. It is therefore the recommendation of this office that: ' 1 . The attached feasibility study for the Lake Lucy Road Trunk Watermain Project No. 88-25 be accepted. 2 . Construction Alternative 3 , which includes the booster pumping station improvements, be designated as the chosen alternate. ' 3 . Plans and specifications be ordered to be prepared by Westwood Professional Services. ' 4 . The City Council resolve that the excess proceeds from the general obligation bonds of 1986 for trunk water system improvements be pledged to finance this project. ' 5 . A public hearing be called for January 23 , 1989 . 6 . Staff be directed to develop the assessment policy for this area for review prior to the public hearing. ' Attachments 1 . Feasibility Study . 2 . Staff report dated July 7 , 1988 . ' 3 . July 11, 1988 City Council minutes . - 1 'I /. R CITYOF ______ , ,__ 1 . � 1 _ ,..4. „. „.... 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ` - (612) 937-1900 I MEMORANDUM Action by City Administrator I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manage Frdor:eC L! Moditigd_ FROM: Gary Warren, City Engine= Rejected I Cite 7f DATE: July 7, 1988 Date Submitted to Commissiort SUBJ: Authorize Feasibility Study Dote s,,,,.,:,d to wux,i I Lake Lucy Road Trunk Watermain 7bi_h File No. 81-1 . 1 The Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain is certainly not a new topic of discussion for the City. There are those who might suggest II that I even have masochistic tendencies for even suggesting resurrection of this issue in light of the three previous reports that have been prepared on this item. And yes I do realize that we just completed roadway improvements to Lake Lucy Raod which would have been a "logical" time to install the watermain. Nevertheless , from my earliest familiarity with the City' s water I distribution system, the Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain connec- tion has loomed as a significant void in the distribution net- work. I feel I would be shirking my professional duties if I did I not take this opportunity to impress upon the Council my concerns for the importance of making this trunk connection in the near future. The City Council has even authorized and had constructed in 1987, 1 ,345 feet of this 18-inch trunk along the Curry Farms I Addition in order to not lose the lateral benefit assessments from that subdivision. My review of the previous reports and discussions surrounding II this item convince me that there is sound understanding as to the need for this trunk watermain connection. To refresh everyone' s Imemory, the high service zone of the City , which comprises approximately i of our customers, exists in the Lake Minnewashta area west of Yosemite (see map) . This area, due to its high ele- vation , is serviced by Well No. 3 (1,000 gpm) on Galpin Boulevard I with a low capacity backup well ( 250 gpm) located in the Minnetonka Middle School off Highway 41 . It is common knowledge that our system demands have rapidly expanded since this was I studied in 1979, but even in the 1979 report it was pointed out that there was a maximum of one day' s storage available from the 200,000 gallon elevated storage tank in case of a Well No. 3 II II ' Don Ashworth July 7, 1988 Page 2 outage.g I shudder to think how that reserve has shrunk since 1979. If Well No. 3 fails for whatever reason , I believe we would have a maximum of 12 hours of reserve under current con- ditions , which after that period, would leave us with no fire protection available and domestic water usage would be severely ' curtailed. Completion of the Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain will intercon- nect our two pressure zones and will allow Well No. 2 near South Lotus Lake Park, and Well No. 4 at Lake Susan, to feed into the high-pressure zone thereby providing backup into that area. In return , Well No. 3 would be able to pump into the low service area to assist wells 2 and 4, thus providing for overall better capacity , pump utilization , and redundancy in the system. The 1985 water study conducted by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron also pointed ' out the need for completing the Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain and forecasted the connection to be completed in 1988 at a cost of $350 ,000. The most recent update of the Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain feasibility was reviewed with the Council in March, 1981 (minutes and reports attached) and addressed the utilization of trunk ' funds generated from building hook-up fees to assist with funding the construction. Council took action at that time (March 16 , 1981 minutes) to proceed with repairs to Well No. 3 and expand ' the capacity of the High School well. I should point out that Well No. 3 was pulled for overhaul again this past winter due to vibration problems and to check and repair the casing. ' With the rapid development we have been experiencing over the last several years, the water expansion fund (Fund 402) has experienced good revenues and currently shows a cash balance of ' over $270 ,000 . In the 1988 budget , it was recognized that a contribution of the trunk funds would be dedicated for assistance in constructing the Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain (attachment ' 10 ) . I believe that with development expanding along Lake Lucy Road such as Curry Farms , Ersbo, Carrico, etc. , that the time is right to again address the need for a redundancy and backup in our water distribution system via Lake Lucy Road. This is an important time to rekindle Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain feasi- bility study and take a fresh look at system adequacy, construc- tion costs and difficulties, and financing scenarios. It is therefore recommended that a feasibility study be authorized for construction of the Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain from Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) to Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117) . i te- Don Ashworth , July 7, 1988 Page 3 Attachments 1. Map. 2. Summary and conclusions from December, 1980 feasibility study update . 3 . July 21 , 1980 minutes. 4 . August 4 , 1980 minutes. 5. March 2 , 1981 City Manager memorandum. 6 . March 2 , 1981 minutes. 7. March 13, 1981 Well No. 3 renovation report. 8 . March 16, 1981 Manager 's comments. 9. March 16 , 1981 minutes. 10 . 402 Water Expansion Fund 1988 budget sheet. 1 i A " 4 I rt .. __ U -_ f w_AI 4 --- ta ,... . 2 rmn Ira 1 pp ,...„.._. __ r ___ . ,4, .. ,.....: . . V i /� pia �► [ ,, z , , ile4; , Irp, jillrosOmir's'tL- %,-41 t A \ ''''._ I me 1,14-inul I : ::::: zimal".. . . — 4•InL! '1 ji ''_,A,L---`77ii' i AI irk ,p =12 40\ ,'• -----.... . 0-a: bil:14)t‘ 1:-- ifP.-/ 71 • 1- --- ': ir-. LyoRi 1 . '''-. ..:,, Zit i i z i. ,-- -.,.....,----.mi irv-- M til vg_ Ld) // 1 u 11 1 equ ' ; __--;-;-ri."-- (Mg*eglawt, -. -lir 1 �fis*. tel:i iPt -ii t . cn ejNii 2 \ ___;,.."mial % cy IIII lir I inurt‘.111.10/ ; di � � M rj. tI , \ . naw ' ts-4 ° - V Vim'='+� \� o r• o I Z iEF r +� _ ��;. \ s� �.�,///'!� 'off N ,~� � ' ' \ .\ • -, t"------- �. y I _gd: , ' 4r .NA I - � ��' t' ca • ' l'\ iti --,, ',A uj �.• a /MA, i Luuw'` .'�.__(i 2 N,..,..„, �annm _, 1.-- !' ■ ' it:. rim ) as 0 .i,1 4"'" ,.. , ,-,,it.. „... ., . ,, 0) ..„,.., ,.. . r. . (0 „/ . , , . , z , ,, , A all,---4.14- , ." i,....0 „se 3 / M NAY i 49f _I ' _ F. ■ IMS.rewm3 JO AIM ' Vi i .woaom io •113 • • in A'P - I /"----' • I t I 0 R, FEASIBILITY STUDY I FOR LAKE LUCY ROAD I TRUNK WATERMAIN UPDATE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA I 11 1 I I 1 l 11 1 I 3 i I SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS 150 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 1 i hereby certify that this plan. l hereby cagy that this ohm ecitic abort. or report was moored apecrfxxtlon,or report wee prepared by me or under my direct srsperwalon DECEMBER, 19 8 0 by rite or under�y dot supervision I I :nd that f ant a duty registered and that tam a duly reelection* 'rotessional Engineer under Professional Engineer under the taws of the State of Minnesota. the taws of tar Mau of Mianssola. date L — Reg.No.: L2 . Date ' . "' Rig.lyo. ' " 1 1 l'1'AC.(i W► T' a 7.:•.• 1. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Presented herein is an engineering study which supplements the Iprevious reports concerning the Lake Lucy Road Trunk Watermain project. These reports were dated June , 1979 , and February 4 , 1980 . I �` The City currently has a water system with two pressure zones - east and west. The supply for the east zone (low pressure) is I provided by two wells , with a third well under construction. Supply Irfor the west zone is from Well No. 3 only, with limited backup from a small unused well at West Junior High. The Lake Lucy Road 18-inch 4 watermain would provide a trunk connection between the two pressure Irzones. Without such a connection, reliability in the west zone is severely lacking. There have been operational problems with Well No. 3, and its reliability remains in question. The purpose of this supplemental report is to identify the gremaining trunk water facilities (and their expenditures) required to serve the proposed Dunn & Curry area developments , and to project z. trunk water assessment revenues therefrom. The possibility of using 'ti some of these assessment revenues to fund the Lake Lucy Road trunk e water improvement was then explored. Based on the information presented herein, we conclude the following: 1) The proposed improvements are feasible from an engineering - point of view. E 2) There would be adequate funds available from surplus trunk water assessments from the Dunn & Curry area developments ^ to temporarily fund the Lake Lucy Road water improvements proposed herein. 3) The assessment for water service along Lake Lucy Road could, therefore, be deferred until sanitary sewer service is available. 4) Presented herein is a proposal to improve the condition I of the street on Lake Lucy Road in conjunction with the proposed trunk water improvement. The street improvement is proposed to be assessed to abutting properties at a rate II 44 of $21. 64 per front foot. 5) The following cost summary indicates estimated costs , revenues, and proposed assessments. N 1 1 I I I I -I • 1 1 k^ II COST SUMMARY LAKE LUCY ROAD TRUNK WATERMAIN UPDATE II t I Total Estimated Project Cost $550 ,810 I kStreet Upgrading $225 , 935 IFront Foot Assessment Rate 2i, for Streets $21. 64 Lateral Watermain $ 63 ,675 Lateral Water Assessment 4 Rate Per Unit $2 , 553 I4 Trunk Watermain $261, 200 From surplus t Trunk assess- Iment Revenues Total $550 , 810 Total Trunk Water Assessment Revenues $1, 364 ,730 II - Total Trunk Water Facility Costs 1 , 001, 655 Surplus of Trunk Water Assessment Revenues to Iltbe Alocated to Lake Lucy Road Trunk Watermain $ 363 , 075 1 1 II I 1I 4 Ili IF 4 i • .:,}'mac . ... _.s r. .,,ti , ' Meeting, July 21, 1980• .., ° tit t II Pearson moved to grant the variances as recommended by the Board of -44111riat and Appeals. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted II 1.,. cc Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative tion carried. cal. ' INSURANCE AGENCY SIGN REQUEST: The Sign Committee recommended 12 to 16 inch . ti�oden letters, white in color, be affixed to the mansard roof. Staff ; , ed approval contingent upon the actual issuance of the sign permit being ,,p�i until the building landlord has taken appropriate action to being the II 1::7::: ' - e building into conformance with the Sign Ordinance. ,vconan Swenson moved to accept the conditions as stated by the City Planner II c,gn Committee with the recommendations as noted in the City Planner's letter ,-,:iv 16, 1980. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: �- Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. II :on carried. u�C'Y ROAD WATERMAIN PROTECT: Councilman Neveaux moved to table this item to a ,�_� date. Motion seconded by Councilman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Y II _,. Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. I` -:on carried. 4..� . z ITIONAL USE PERMIT, FARMER'S MARKET, ST. HUBERT'S CHURCH PARKING LOT: Councilman II - ==2:ison moved to approved the conditional use permit in line with the Land Use -crdinator's report of June 23, 1980. The Land Use Coordinator will prepare the -L.nditional use permit. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted II favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative -rtes. Motion carried. . —MA TRAIL SANITARY .SEWER PROJECT, STREET PAVING: A petition has been received signed by several residents on Kiowa Trail expressing a willingness to pay an II additional $588.00 for blacktopping instead of sealcoating Kiowa Trail. Mr. and Mrs. Eichholt expressed concern about possible settlement of the street due to the sewer II installation. councilman Pearson moved to authorize a contract amendment to add a two inch mat 11 rather than sPalcoating to the Kiowa Trail Sanitary Sewer Project 79-3 based on the city Manager's recommendation. The City Engineer will recheck the compaction. No speed dips will be installed. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following II .c% voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND URBAN DESIGN CONSTRUCTION, DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, HRA: I .. Clifford Whitehill, HRA, and Don Ringrose, BRW, were present. The HRA has recommended that BRW be retained to prepare the feasibility study for the redevelopment area. Schoell and Madson have requested consideration. After much discussion, Councilman I Neveaux moved to table action to June 28, 1980, at 7:00 p.m. Notion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. II CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hobbs asked if council manbers' wished to discuss any items on the consent agenda. As no additional continents were received, Councilman Geving moved to approve the consent agenda as recommended by the City Manager. II a. Authorize letters of appreciation for volunteer service: =c, 1. Joe Betz, Park and Recreation Commission. 2. Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal. II b. Industrial Revenue Bond proposals, establish time limits of approvals. 1. Roos Office Building - West 78th Street. . 2. Dodge Dealership - West 79th Street. II Notion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, /1 TrAf LL P14L&t T August 4, 1980, Council Meeting -2- SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING: The Council will hold a special meeting August 11, ' 1980, to review proposed assessments with the City Engineer. II BALTIC CORPORATION NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT: At the Council's request, Lon =4- Holte was present to review items not completed as setforth in the non-conforming 4 '` use permit. No action was taken. The City Attorney will proceed with court a Ir. •--; 4 action against Baltic Corporation and Transamerican Insurance Company. K- ; � LAKE LUCY WATERMAIN PROJECT: The City Manager discussed his report of July 21, t. 1980. The Planning Commission recommended that the Council not construct the Lake Lucy Road watermain but instead drill another well at wellfield #3. Primary concern by the Planning Commission was the comparison of $125,000 for a new well l versus $330,000 for the Lake Lucy Road watermain construction. Council members discussed a connection from the new well in Chanhassen Lakes Business Park along State Highway 5 west to Galpin Blvd. and north on Galpin Blvd. to the existing J well. = 2 +s.A 1 Councilman Neveaux moved to table action until the City Manager defines the vests ' of running a line along Highway 5 to Galpin Blvd. and ways to fund the project. I.: Motion seconded by Councilman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. y Motion carried. }-' NORTH AREA ASSFcSMENT - HOWARD VERLO: Mr. Verlo was resent requesting equesting an explanation of his assessment. The City Attorney will meet with Mr. Verlo to explain the assessment. ill PUBLIC NUISANCE, 6689 NEZ PERCE DRIVE: A signed petition was received from the residents of the 6600 block of Nez Perce Drive in Carver Beach requesting -- , . assistance in restoring the neighborhood to the quiet and safe place it was. _-' Captain Al Wallin, Sheriff's Office, and several neighbors were present. Na action was taken. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PETITION, LOTUS TRAIL: A signed petition has been received r. !i requesting the paving of Lotus Trail. Several residents were present. council.-14' il Pearson moved to authorize a feasibility study for the paving of Lotus Trail ' and refer the question as to how to resolve the apparent conflict between the - Carver Beach Plan and actual property usage patters to the Park and Recreation 11 Commission and Planning Commission for their consideration. Motion secondedty i Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Peat • - k' Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. . Y I I 1_- PARK ONE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: Julius Smith, Jerry Korsunsky, and Daryl Fortcc were present. The Planning Commission has recommended that the Council appraY ;: . ; a generalized sketch plan reflecting that the northerly portion of Park One be developed as a planned industrial area. ti''' Councilman Pearson moved to authorize staff to solicit proposals to prepare a , feasibility study and prepare a tax increment financing plan. An escrow act'.,, ,r ! will be established to cover all possible contingencies involved in the pr , � 4 . of reports and staff time. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The fol ' ' voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swe�' ifs No negative votes. Motion carried. 3 Mayor Hobbs moved that assuming the project is feasible, in order to pros under either a public improvement project or an economic development disttiY the City Council is of a mind that the guar . i;, tY project would have to be anteed Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: mar- ..,-: - . . , c i 11 y c F 3. 1 c ti,..1, rl, 1:i3 7 ti s sli i‘ii m__ .____ ‘ .. i _ . f ,=. rI;4'. U. Fil - LP= •-9/ k ,...., . 1 ..., ,_ • • � . _ • ^ 7610 LAREDO DRIVE o P.O. BOX 147 CNANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 ' ,-......4 (612) 937-1900 I MEMORANDUM I TO: Mayor and City Council • FROM: City Manager, Don Ashworth I DATE: March 2, 1981 I SUBJ: Lake Lucy Road Truck Watermain Feasibility Report Update, - Schoell and Madson . is This item has appeared on numerous agendas - thus providing difficulty for this office in summarizing issues. Although any one discussion I point can lead to numerous tangents, I believe that only one option remains viable - construction of the trunk water facility on Lake Lucy Road. This recommendation is made based on the following: I 1) . The proposed construction represents the least expensive means to provide reliability of the water Isystem as; . a. There is no assurance that a second well on County • 117 would not encounter similar sand problems as - presently exist at that well. b. Adequate water supplies can be assured to the north I service area from the existing well structure within the core area. c. Back up water supply would be provided -to the core . 1 area, i.e. failures or repairs at the high water • storage tank in the core area, simultaneous loss - of electricity to run pumps within this area,. etc. . 2) . This option does represent the least cost, in the long run, to abutting property owners as: a. Water service along Lake Lucy Road will continue to • I occur. As each of these extensions move westerly abutting owners will incur higher costs from doing the job twice, i.e. Ersbo watermain extension request of 1979 , potential watermain extension for the il sewered property north of Ersbo, etc. 4777a.a4 ni C...---_-_,,u.)7" A - A Lak` Lucy Road Iwithj is one o f the i;n the City which becnemaiiiin the e road passable. In 1981 , it m may made �. I the Spring period.may The totally the most minor possible .re l The costs of 3 to 4 times greater than pair would be " for the entire cit the entire at least do not read ' city. Finally, existing d it budget which will readily lend themselves to g ditches require that such ° watermain Isimproadway, Putting be under o construct ly means that all of these one side • • the road factors together the in the near future and when improvement nt will occur :-a,. I property watermain construction twice for c owners will literally be road construction, paying c. '�r The Lake Lucy Road watermain w• i t . n time. Property will occur � ' present y owners can avoid the cost some t Pent' it and time, but, in the long cost at the - Probably at a higher costun they will pay I 3) . The proposed `'` closely Road trunk construction m the overall trunk unk water more I a. It is a Plan as: part of that trunk water y` b• Within the plan_ r:; I will h be next 5 to 10 seriously Year period, :, >. wi treatment y considered by iron removal process is expensive the City. This Pump house within the Pensive and the we type ,' I have been Chanhassen Lakes wells and :' sized and designed to accommodaaten iron removal at that location. Park removal ca Recognizing iron Service capabilities would be g this, iron I Area if the Lake provided to the North . Service other Area if the Lucy watermain were well alternative, of constructing construe ,. capability,County 117, would not g a secondary , `` provide this t I type of Two major deterrents Road trunk exist to watermain - 1) the completing construction of Road a trunk facility City could not reasonably the Lake Lu `- ' payment via (increasing sewer and is Pao for such -- and whether general property water rates voters would approve y taxes represents is not reaso - •• ' and whether of lateral such questions ) ; to equi • !' Iplace undue hardship benefit back to abutting prop rte.)etc.) ; and 2) • and/or undue peon these owners abutting Property owners will desired. quests with densities higher m This latter development �': as sanitary point also higher tear may on be ,., that the y sewer is not brings to light the city would be presently available to this question that,. =s' assessments would be on setting a double standard getewal area, =' 45 which w typical residential to in that water :_ ?s, ; would prohibit divisions without sanitary'In sewer. -' " ` comments, :- hiadson to carry out this office :'!.."• a review of requested Schnell and � ..` It avenues/expenditures of the overall ated D f that system. The trunk water system and �' ;•3' December, 1980 , reflects attached feasibility re• • � • • Ithat trunk water charges against :���' .Mayor and Council - 'es within the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park as well II properties proposed residential developments will produce revenues in excess of proposed trunk water facilities solely located within any one I of those developments. Based on this analysis, the conclusion that could be drawn is that - given the revenues that would he generated within the trunk water system that sufficient monies exist to I fund the Lake Lucy Road trunk water costs from such revenues. The problem with this type of analysis is that such represents "pie in the sky" . Should either Chaparral West or Lake Susan Hills West not be approved or not develop as envisioned by the developer , ' '++ the City would then be faced with another "north service iarea" (expenditures would have occurred, but no revenues present support such construction costs) . I r ' It is the belief of this office that the above fallacy can be averted_ Specifically, in approving the New Horizon development on the east I side of County 17 , the City set the full amount of assessments as a cost to be paid by the developer over a three year period. Should • they fail to pay such assessment, they were additionally required to establish a letter of credit equal to 110% of such assessment I costs. If the city council were to establish a similar policy in approving either "Chaparral West" or "Lake Susan Hills West" and make the trunk water charges against lots within those developments a I part of the initial assessable costs (guaranteed by letter of credit) the City could assure that sufficient monies would exist to pay trunk costs for the Lake Lucy Road water extension. I 1 I believe the recommendation presented above represents a viable alternative to the City. Further, I believe that within the next ' 30 to 60 days that decisions in regards to Chaparral West and Lake Susan Hills West will be consummated and, assuming that the City Council agreed that this funding aeralhnagnderoadlconstructioncocouldcti.on of the Lake Lucy Road trunk, I conceivably , begin this summer. 3 Ordering a public hearing date of April 13 , 1981, is recommended. I Such hearing would consider assessing improvement costs in accordance • iiwith the December, 1980 , Schoell and Madson feasibility study. Recognizing an approximate 8 - 10 week period to prepare plans I and specifications and advertisement for bids, the earliest a final ildecision to approve or deny proceeding with the project would be mid-June. I ell-) 02/ 0 /-Z2,-... e....--a /0.;..-4,-.L.,-. . . / . 1 W.Q-f u aV� ' +O �. % )111 . /ll �J P-. ieic■-c.,..11-at?' "-- CA/3 e _31 II �- Council Meeting March 2, 1981 -2- II .Horn moved to note the February 19, 1981, Lake Study Committee minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilto; Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. LAKE LUCY ROAD TRUNK WATERMAIN: The purpose of this proposed watermain project is to provide a trunk connection between the east and west pressure zones in the city.: At the present time the western part of the city is supplied by Well No. 3 only. 1 Jim Orr briefly explained the proposed project and methods of payment. e �, Councilman Geving moved to direct staff to prepare budgetary estimates for the ��� by-pass of Well #3 as well as an analysis of the trunk fund to determine the/IC ability to carry out repairs at Well #3. This item will be on the March 16 Council} I , agenda. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor ,? Hamilton, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried; Ti TRAILER REMOVAL, DONALD SCHMELTZER, TWIN HILLS: Councilman Geving moved to directs '.4 staff to prepare a letter to Mr. Schmeltzer ordering the removal of his mobile home: within ten days or be subject to a fine of $300 per day of violation. Motion secone ' It by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Nevea Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. REMOTE WATER METER POLICY, REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Mike Murphy, President of a the Chanhassen Estates Residents Association, appeared before the Council objecting- to the policy for the installation of remote water meters. The Council took no IITaction to change the policy of requiring the installation of remote water meters. HIGHWAY 212 OFFICIAL MAPPING, PROGRESS REPORT: Pat Murphy, Carver County Director IF of Public Works, and Councilman Geving reviewed the progress of the Highway 212 Citizen Advisory Committee. No action was taken. i 7. REVIEW NEW COUNTY 18 ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES: Pat Murphy, Carver County Public Works Director, and Don Wisniewski, County Engineer, reviewed county road 7 IF construction plans including the hard surfacing of Lyman Great an Blvd, from G Plains •4 Blvd. to Audobon Drive. The county five year plan calls for the extension of Lyman Ir Blvd. west to Hazeltine Blvd. Council members were asked to select an alignment for this extension. Councilman Geving moved to table action to March 16, 1981. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Geving 1 and Horn. Councilman Neveaux voted no. Motion carried. NORTH SERVICE AREA, 1980 APPEALS: The City Attorney presented court findings in regards to 13 property owner appeals in regards to assessments placed by the City r in 1980 for the North Service Area. It is the opinion of the attorney that the . City Council's findings as to the amount of such assessment was not questioned, but F: that the technical basis on which assessments were made in 1980 represented the -_., basis of the adverse decision against the City. Such appeals and decision by the Court did not invalidate any of the other 300+ assessments placed by the City in l' ., • either 1973 or 1980. It was the opinion of their office that, the Council should ', (; comply with the rulings of the Court to abate the previous two hearings and to -' establish one colsolidated hearing for assessment of sewer and water costs against Ey the 13 owners considered by the Court. The amount of the assessments would remain -. .d. the same. • Councilman Neveaux moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare a re-assessment 6 roll for the 13 specific parcels effected by Judge Breunig's order of February 9, 1981. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor '; Hamilton, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried .. 41TAC1101747*44 • 1 1 WILLIAM D.SCHOELL CARLISLE MADSON JACK T.VOSLER JAMES R. ORR HAROLD E. DAHLIN _, z e . LARRY L.HANSON , SCHOELL & MADSON INC. JACK E. GILL -�..�.a._.— !!•?a• ' ice THEODORE D. KEMNA .; :: � ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS JOHN W EMOND KENNETH E.AOOLF " t3 WILLIAM R.ENGELHARDT R. SCOTT HARRI (612) 93 8-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343 GERALD L.BACKMAN March 13, 1981 City of Chanhassen c/o Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager (��1I- =;1T�,, P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 �� Subject: Well No. 3 Renovatioi C4-IV 'j) to vlQzo Gentlemen: cHANHAS; MINN, • Pursuant to Council request, we herein report on e?batter'' of renovation of City Well No. 3, and other work required to undertake such renovation. Since the March 2, 1981, Council Meeting, we have done further investigation of Well No. 3. The well was test-pumped on three different runs at varying pumpage rates . The purpose • was to determine the sand content from the well, and what effect variations on pumping rates have on such sand content. Findings were that at a pumping rate of 750 - 840 gallons per minute the sand content was from 0.13 - 0 .39 parts per million. At a pumping rate of 1,050 gpm the sand content was 1.71 to 3. 17 ppm. I The well pump currently has a severe vibration. Well No. 3 , since its drilling in 1973, was a sand producer 1 (20 ppm) . The well draws from both the Jordan and Shakopee aquifers. In 1973 , the sand problem was not severe enough to !(Al-r-aCktME1A— 7 SCHOELL & MAOS r" J, INC. I " ! . ' City of Chanhassen • c/o Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager March 13, 1981 Page Two justify the expensive screen and I gravel packing. It was assumed; that the sand would possibly disappear. Based on the recent 4 tests it. has. We thus are not recommending television or photo -' analysis of the casing. The only work recommended for Well.el 1. No. -e is to pull the pump, replace bearings and bowl as sembl -,±" I replace required shaft, column 1'+ and I Pipe and spiders as the conditivzi'� dictates . Our estimated cost for this "- his is from 000 to $ - $20,000 . ,:a: depending on what is found from Ipulling the pump. Time reguired_`, to complete this work is approximately one - two weeks. During -,: ' this period of repair the West Junior High standby F4 y well will : i:` likely not be able to handle minimum domestic demand for a pert.• . Iof a few weeks . The West est Junior High well can definitely not sustain the system in peak demand periods of the su:: mmer or for major fire demand. We therefore, urge that one of the followi options be done prior to repair of Well No. 3. Option No. 1 - Installation of a , p 63rd and Yosemite Pressure Reducing B • Bypass at . g Valves. This would involve construction of a pumper hose on each side of the ress connection. P ure reducing manhole. These would be&; I permanent points of connection for either a fire J. t trailer-mounted booster pumper or a , L Pump (gasoline driven) . Estimated co s$ s I the connections (similar to fire hydrants) would be This does not include the e uP to $S,OOQ I pumper cost which we assume would bed` rented. I �r. _y- --- • , 1- • SCHOELL & MADSON.INc. t1 City of Chanhassen March 13 , 1981 c/o Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager Page Three 11 Option No. 2 - Increasing the Capacity of the West Junior High Well with a new Pump: This option would increase pumping capacity of the well from the current 100 - 150 gpm to 250 - 300 gpm. This 300 gpm capacity would give slightly improved reliability on an emergency basis for domestic demand. it would not give fire demand reliability nor would it likely i:. y. y provide peak summer demand reliability. Cost -j • of new pumping equipment would be approximately $4,000 - $7,000 , assuming no unusual problems when the pump would be pulled. it .1 also assumes that the Minnesota Department of Health would approve of such a change without adding chlorination and fluorida- tion. They have tentatively indicated that for a standby well they may waive the requirements for disinfection and fluoridation. Should chemicals be required, the cost would go up $4,000 - $6,000 . We have tentatively discussed this with Minnetonka School District Staff, and feel that an arrangement to house chemical feeders in their old tank room could possibly be worked out. In terms of the school well, it was drilled in 1963 by E. H. 1 Renner, was test-pumped at 270 gpm with three ppm sand. The well was acquired by the City in 1974 . It is a pitless unit, has a six inch casing, and is 520 feet deep and terminates in the Jordan aquifer. c SCHOELL & MAD N. INC. City of Chanhassen c/o Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager March 13, 1981 1 Page Four I � Conclusions: We recommend the Council authorize repair of Well No. 3 as presented. This should be done in any case. Prior I Y lzor to such repair work commencing, we recommend that the West st Junior High ;� Well capacity be increased (Option No. 2 7 by addition of new �;' pumping equipment. This will add some reliability .`r emergency basis, but will not Y °n an .S��f provide the desired reliability =� •' for peak summer demand or fire demand. y II - Option No. 2 would o°"' maximize the capacity of the school well. ± ,3 IIt should also be noted that although the improvements �. proposed herein would be beneficial _ '7 III 1 to the City's '' reliability, '� water system.''. y we still urge the interconnection of the high and low service zones . This would be accomplished by f Road trunk watermain. Y the Lake Lu Very truly yours, � '(2...44......" _ A.# •SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ":V I _ v -� • JROrr:bk = .,4,...: , f I :<r s' ,: 'i i . .1 11- •..4k,.'.. _ .„ ,o- :.: - • - -P.• k. . II ,-- ...r • , - . i , ,.-t • FUND: 402 WATER EXPANSION • 1 - DEPARTMaNT: DEBT SERVICE II FUNCTION: RETIRE GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT :-. - , •....., . ACTUAL ESTIMATED BUDGET 1979 1980 1981 - IIREVME • 1 _ SPECIAL ASSESSM1TS • 1-_-.-- 3130 Current $ 2,356.62 $ 2,730.00 $ 2,000.00 1 -1',- 13131 Delinquent 2,052.00 1,700.00 500.00 11."4 -'" TOTAL SPECIAL ASSMTS. 4,408.62 4,430.00 2,500.00 Ir r - - ■ F::5..- OTHER REVENUE II i , . : -- 3801 Interest 2,873.14 2,300.00 2,300.00 3806 Connection Charges 5,960.00 4,800.00 10,000.00 i•-_-.1*. - 1 1 TOT OTHER REVENUE 8,833.14 - 7,100.00 12,300.00 , i ..„, 1-.:-'-i TOTAL REVENUE ' 13,241.76 11,530.00 14,800.00 I 1 4 4., I - 4•■• ..4>'. 1 7 . TRANSFERS - IN TRANSFERS - our -0- -0- . . . -0- , BEGINNING BALANCE 45,003.54 29,770.00 - 29,650.00 It 1 ..-- v -.1,:- TOTAL RESOURCES 58,245.30 41,300.00 44,450.00 11 4,- -- II -'-•1 CONTRACTUAL EXPENSES . 1:- :- • - , .--?-4330 Fees Service 2,185.44 -0- 2,000.00 I .41.:' 4550 Repair & Maint., Utility 14,000.00 -0- 14,000.00 -,-4.--. 1z TOTAL CONTRACTUAL 16,185.44. -0-- 16,000.00 II If DEBT SERVICE t 4801 Debt Principal 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 II 1'1,1 4802 Debt Interest 2,260.00 1,620.00 980.00 a 4803 Miscellaneous 26.00 30.00 30.00 IP -.1 ...... TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 12,286.00 11,650.00 11,010.00 . r . -. .. SOTAL EXPENDITURES $28,471.44 $11,650.00 $27,010.00 ' ..; . 15 • . ' , ,•• . ..,.. - . i I... ,.,. • • v• . Ia '- FUND: 4 0 2 WATER F.'AtJS ION I• • ' DEPARTMENT: DEBTkoERVICE ! FUNCTION: RETIRE GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT • - Commentary . 1 1 y 1 i This fund derives its money from water hook up charges and is -: dedicated to pay oversizing and other i g general benefit costs associated with the water utility system. Current and future :.' I debt payments to the 1968-2 pump house are as follows : Year Principal Interest Total . 1981 $10, 000 $ 980 $10, 980 ,;'. 1982 10, 000 330 10,330 :4,t Repair of Well "'3 is proposed in 1981 ($16,000) . . This wel �� 1 is approximately 10 years old and replacing worn parts, repackin•1 M. .. and inspecting well casing is required. <, 0 1 i • -- 1 eT t 1k i Iice ' yam¢~ Will fie:. • .rr- i •'s.,. �4: . c: • I g . r .4 '.. I t} 1 r. I M i • +A::. II 1 ,. ,r I al „..,, p.,,i ,t 1 . 01 • . t . March 16 , 1981 _ II Manager' s Comments: ' These two budget sheets are taken from the approved 1981 budget. They reflect that the intent has been to repair Well #3 and costs set I appear within current estimates of the engineer. However , the budget also assumed that a permanent solution to the reliability issue would have occurred prior to repairing Well #3 and that the ' permanent solution would have been paid from some other revenue source, i.e. construction of the Lake Lucy trunk watermain as a public improvement project. If the Council approves repairs to Well #3, including temporary auxiliary water supplies (i.e. upgrading of well at Junior High) , a budget problem could exist. This statement is made in light of the fact that the 1981 budget represented a "best estimate" of revenues and expenditures. If I "connection charges" are less than the $10 ,000 shown, no severe problem would exist as "Total Resources" exceed "Total Expenditures" by $17 ,000. The above statements are also true if expenditures exceed the $16 ,000 budgeted. However, if we now also attempt to I pay for the auxiliary water supply costs, a deficit could occur, i.e. 1981 Budget - Water Expansion Fund (If modified per the engineer' s memo of March 13 , 1981) II1981 Optimistic Pessimistic Budget As Budgetary Budgetary Approved Position Position I Total Revenue $44 ,450 . $48 ,000. $40 ,000. Expenses ' Well Repairs 16 ,000 . 7 ,000. 20 ,000. Auxil. Water Rep. -0- 4 ,000 . 7 ,000. Fluoridatin/Chlorination -0- -0- 6 ,000. Debt Service 11 ,010. 11 ,000. 11 ,000. Engineer/Other Exp. -0- 2 ,000. 2 ,000 . Total Expenses 27 ,010. 25 ,000. 47 ,000. !I Balance 17 ,340. 23 ,000. [7 ,0001 * I *This situation would require a temporary loan from the sewer availability fund. This may be up to a three year period as sufficient monies , may not then exist in this fund to pay 1982 debt service costs. 1 D'f' 1 &TrcuAELTr48I • I ... --'1117,11 - i. ft ,::AR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 16, 1981 }Hamilton called the meeting to order with the following members present: _, ilmen Geving and Horn. Councilmen Neveaux and Swenson were absent. The meeting II ;,.,.,: with the Pledge to the Flag. ,,,;,VAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the agenda as presented with the Isjns,ing ations: Debris in Kenny's Parking Lot, Check List, Review of City Overlay District for Redevelopment Project, discussion of meeting with ;:alt Web on March 13. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted i Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carrie OF BIDS - CABINETRY FOR LIBRARY, CITY HALL, AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDINGS: Three were received with Bloomberg Companies being the low bidder in the amount of ' :: .785.00. sncilman Geving moved to award the bid to Bloomberg Companies in the amount of II :: ,785.00 for cabinetry for the City Hall, Library, and Public Works Buildings. Moti .r,-:'nded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilme: .-•:ing and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. I "-': TES: Councilman Horn moved to approve the March 2, 1981, Council minutes. Motion `nded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Council: ,:.,vine and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. I ":SENT AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton asked if council members wished to discuss any items the consent agenda. As no additional comments were received, Councilman Geving mov( LI , , approve the consent agenda pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: I a. Upgrading of Existing Highway 212/169. - ac1-44wC,ttiv�- 2/- 4)&6 b. Set Special Meeting Date, April 4, 1981, at 9:00 a.m. to tour various public improvements. IC. Lotus Lake Community Park, Amend Grant Application. d. Set Special Meeting Date, Board of Equalization, June 8, 1981. `lotion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, II Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. REVIEW NEW COUNTY ROAD 18 ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES: Pat Murphy, Don Wisniewski Mark Koegler, and Luke Melchert were present. Council members discussed previous actions I taken by the Council in reviewing overall county road systems. Attention was given to potential new alignments as it would extend westerly from Galpin Blvd. to State Highway 41. The City Manager was instructed to set up a meeting with the Chaska City Council I to discuss possible alignments. The joint meeting was tentatively set for March 30, 1981. MUNICIPAL WELL #3 RENOVATION: Jim Orr presented a report on the work necessary to Irenovate Well #3 and approximate costs associated with the renovation. Councilman Horn moved to authorize staff to take the necessary steps to renovate Ix Well #3 and adopt the modified budget (Option 2) per the Manager's report of March 16, 1981. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. I f '•a SORENSON DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, WEST 79TH STREET: Mike Sorenson was present asking f about the status of the HRA downtown project as it relates to his property on the corner 2 of West 79th Street and Great Plains Blvd. Mr. Sorenson was told that various I alternatives will be prepared in terms of his ability to develop his property depending upon the Council's decision regarding the HRA project. II ATTA-CV1 PWL7-1-4 .6-1 4 1 FUND: 402 WATER EXPANSION FUNCTION: CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 1988 BUDGET II Commentary I This fund derives its money from water hook-up charges and is dedicated to pay oversizing and other general benefit costs associated with the water utility system. Revenue into this fund fluctuates greatly in that collections are II based on development in areas where trunk costs were not assessed as part of the construction project. FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I FOR THE CHANHASSEN WATER SYSTEM ESTIMATED II YEAR DESCRIPTION COST 1986 Install siding on Well House No. 1. 1,500 Abandon Well No. 1. 4,000 II Remove pump and liner at Well No. 2 and IIreinstall following overhaul and general repair. 14,000 1987 Install tower level indicator in Well No. 4. 5,000 I Waterproofing County Road 117 Booster Station. 1 ,200 Waterproofing Yosemite Pressure Reducer Station. 1 ,200 II Remove pumps and liner at Well No 3 and reinstall following overhaul and general II repair . 15 ,000 Remove booster pump on County Road 117 and II reinstall following general overhaul. 10,000 General Repairs 10,000 42 ,400 II _ 1988 Painting and general repair of north water tower including supply alternate water source. 70,000 Painting and general repair of water tower on West 76th Street. 41 ,000 General Repairs 10 ,000 II 121,000* 1989 Remove pumps and liner at Well No. 4 and reinstall following overhaul and general II repair. 17,500 General Repairs 10,000 II 1990 27,500 Construct Well #5 * Note: Lake Lucy trunk watermain needs to be completed. Staff will explore funding options in 1988 and potentially recommend completing this project in 1988 as a 1\ combination special assessment/special revenue project. This alternative may allow the City to fund the project over a 5-10 year period and stay within projected revenues -76- d1ri—r-A♦ t i IAA r—. .-r .4 /f1 ... 161 w - - City Council Meeting ry 11, 1988 II . out in the country a little bit that we shouldn't be concerned about cleaning that up just as well as any other part of town. I'd encourage you to go ahead II with the plan also. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table action on the Concept Plan to amend a Planned Unit Development for Ches Mar Farms until after the Planning Commission has had a chance to review the new plan presented at the City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 Gerry Eikaas, 2761 Ches Mar Farm Road: In the last Minutes I think it said my ' name was Aikenspot or something but it's Eikaas. We did send a letter to councilmembers and to the Planning Staff asking if we could please be notified of any change or any plans and that has not occurred and I'm just asking out of courtesy when you set up the meeting at the Planning Staff or City Council ' meeting, if you could just send us a notice. Mayor Hamilton: I think we have your name and if you give your name to Barbara. ' Perhaps if they didn't know how to spell your name last time, it was hard for them to find you. Councilman Boyt: Did we get that letter? Councilman Geving: I don't remember seeing it. II IL_ Gerry Eikaas: That was sent for the first meeting and I sent it everyone on the Council. We also sent it to the Planning Staff with my right name and address. It was signed by everyone that lives at Ches Mar Farm. ' Councilman Horn: Outside you said you didn't send it as part of this package. You sent it directly to us? tGerry Eikaas: No. I sent it to the City Hall. Councilman Johnson: I think it was under Adminstrative Section several months ago wasn't it? It was quite a while ago. I do remember a letter from Ches Mar -- and I said, what's going on here? AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR LAKE LUCY ROAD WATERMAIN. �� _ ✓Gary Warren: Just briefly, to give you an overview here since everybody is I pretty familiar with our situation. This is an item that has appeared before the Council back as far as 1979. The City's water system is split into two service areas. High pressure zone and what we call low pressure zone system. ' It implies that it's deficient but it's lower than the high. Three quarters of our users, basically from Yosemite Avenue to the east are in that low pressue zone area and are serviced by Well #4 down by Lake Susan and by Well #2 in South I Lotus Lake park area. We just recently added our new ground storage reservoir is in the low service area and added needed capacity into that area. The high service zone is on the west side of the City and is serviced from Well #3 off of Galpin Blvd.. It services about a quarter of the users. Primarily up in about the Lake Minnewashta area. As we pointed out in the past and previous ' 39 Council Meeting g - Ju 11, 1988 I Ifeasibility studies and most recently in 1985 the water study, a needed improvement to the system is the trunk watermain along Lake Lucy Road to interconnect the two systems on the north side down. Along Lake Lucy Road to basically connect the Well #3 into the low pressure system. They basically are pumping at the same service area and the water from Well #3 is sent through a booster station to get it up to the higher elevation to the higher zone there. A couple of things come with that. One, is Well #3 is about 1,000 gallons per II minute pump, a major pump like for Wells #2 and #4. However, it only has a 250 gallon per minute back-up up in our high school well. Council took action as you saw from the attachments here and I'm sure many of you are familiar with it, II �\ having been there, to do necessary modifications to Well #3 at that time and �1 also, to upgrade the capacity of the high school well from 150 to 250 gallons ,I' per minute. That was done and that's all the farther we can really develop the ���"" high school well. So by making the interconnection between the low pressure II system and Well #3, we are able to utilize pumping capacity of Wells #2 and #4 to feed into the high pressure zone and likewise we are able to utilize Well #3 to pump back into the lower pressure system to serve as addition pumping II capacity. Well #3 currently runs about 5 hours a day on the average whereas Well #2 is running in the primer mode, we've been up over 20 hours a day before the sprinkling restrictions so #2 and #4 and definitely the work horses because II of the large amount of the system that they're feeding and Well #3 could help to take some of the peak off of those wells. At this point in time, in light of I guess what I would call almost a void in our system here, I thought it appropriate to bring it back to the Council to reconsider and taking a fresh II look at the Lake Lucy Road watermain because as we all know, even with the reserve capacity, storage capacity you have in the system, the ability to develop the water and pump in the system is a real key for us as far as staying ' ahead of the game on sprinkling ban problems. Mayor Hamilton: When was the last feasibility study done? Gary Warren: 1980. II Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you could refresh everybody's memory and so everyone has I an understanding of what the feasibility study will show us. Gary Warren: The purpose of the feasibility study would be to take a look at I constructing the watermain connection along Lake Lucy Road to actually establish the feasibility of doing it, for one thing, and also to look at the cost for constructing that improvement as well as funding scenarios. Whether any or all or none of the costs would be assessed to the abutting property owners or II benefitting properties. Mayor Hamilton: I know there are some residents who are interested in this and I just so they know that by doing a feasibility study doesn't do anything other than to give us additional information. Gary Warren: We look at this as typical, I guess 429 public improvement II project, if the Council authorizes it, which would call for a public hearing after the feasibility study was done. Invite public comment and then allow an evaluation on the basis of the Council to decide whether to proceed forward with lii each step or not. We do have about 1,300 feet of the 18 inches. It would be an 18 inch watermain and we do have 1,300 feet of that already installed. We did it as a part of the Curry Farms 1st Addition but we did not look at the local 40 .,A. � ` 1 City Council Meeting - (by 11, 1988 _r 1 63 Ilir _ benefit from an assessment standpoint. Councilman Horn: Did you also include in that other examples of this type of I facility? How it was funded or any deviations that we've made from our traditional funding methods? IIGary Warren: Yes, as I'm sure you're referencing here, with Chan Hills trunk watermain for example. There we had a combination of local benefitting - property, that had a residential assessment and also a large participation of II funds... - Councilman Horn: The other thing I'd like to see addressed in there, would there have been the same had this been done in conjunction with the road improvement project? Gary Warren: The intent, just to clarify everybody's mind, is that we have I enough right-of-way out there and such that we would not be tearing up Lake Lucy Road. ICouncilman Geving: Not just intent. Gary Warren: That we would not be disrupting Lake Lucy Road. IICouncilman Horn: If you were disrupting it today, would you plan the sewer differently than where it is now because that will be the obvious question that everyone will have? it Gary Warren: As far as the cost? I Mayor Hamilton: We talked about that when we did Lake Lucy Road. Why not do the water at the same time and I don't remember what the reasons were why we didn't but I know that we did talk about it. IGary Warren: In going through the record, all that I could obtain was the discussion, there was some question about Well #3 and that it could be brought up to higher capacity and also developing the high school well to a larger level I of service which was the direction the Council went which at that time provided us maybe 24 hours of reserve, which is reasonable with a service area for that time. With the expansion we're seeing now, that is cutting... ICouncilman Geving: Gary, is it possible that this entire project, for feasibility purposes only, we're only talking feasibility here, could be funded by means other than assessments? I'm talking 100%. IGary Warren: There's always the options of utilizing trunk funds. Trunks funds currently show a cash balance of about $270,000.00. We're estimating the I project to cost about $350,000.00 so there is a shortfall there. I'm sure through a general tax levy or there are other alternatives. IiCouncilman Geving: Those would come out, like Clark is mentioning, in your alterantives. Councilman Boyt: My comment would be, what you've told us, it's easy to Irecognize that this is a critical situation. I don't think it's critical to the II41 1 64 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1988 people who live on Lake Lucy Road and I think I would support the direction Dale might be headed in. I'd be opposed to assessing the people on Lake Lucy Road for this. We need to pursue other alternatives with the thought being, at least from my standpoint, we're not going to assess people that have a functioning well and an existing working system. If they want to join it, then they can pay whatever the fee is to attach. Mayor Hamilton: This is a citywide benefit and to loop the water system completely is really a benefit to everybody in the City so I see that as certainly not something that should be born by the folks who live on Lake Lucy �\ Road. I think we need to keep our vision open and look at all alternatives but certainly looking more to how we can fund it without assessing anyone. N Councilman Geving: There's another issue though too Tom. Don't we have the regulation that requires hook-up within one year if the facility is available. That we might have to address that. If people do have a working system, they might be able to, part of that particular persons, you might want to refresh us. Gary Warren: It's 1 or 2 years but it's within 150 feet also. ' Mayor Hamilton: That should be addressed within the feasibility study. Councilman Geving: I don't want to force anybody into something that might cost ' them a lot of money if they're got a new system and it's working even though we do have a policy and an ordinance that covers it. Councilman Horn: I think too, which will bring out in the feasibility study, what our philosophy has been. I can remember the statement saying, if your well isn't broke now, it's only a matter of time until it will be and the assumption is you'll be tying into it. A lot of people paid a lot of assessments based on that. It's going to come down to the same, just like Tom mentioned earlier. You were the last guy who paid for the water system in front of your house even though you had a working well and now the Council comes along and decided to change the policy on how we assess this thing, I'd be a little upset. I don't think none of us can make the statement on how this should be done until we get the history... Councilman Geving: Based on that, I would move that we authorize the feasibility study on the Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain as proposed to us tonight by Gary Warren with all the comments prepared here given by the Council, to be included in the feasibility study. Mayor Hamilton: I'll second it. Did you guys have any comments? Brian or ' Larry, did you guys have anything you wanted to comment. Larry Kerber: Could homeowners hook up to this or is this strictly a trunk? You could hook up a house to it? Mayor Hamilton: Right. Larry Kerber: Okay, how is it going to affect places that have water already like my property? y Mayor Hamilton: You mean you have your own well? 42 , 1 City Council Meeting -(ly 11, 1988 165 II Larry Kerber: No, h Y I have city sewer and water. I Mayor Hamilton: You're already hooked into it? You won't be changing your hook-up? I Larry Kerber: I mean if you decided to assess the homeowners, would I be assessed? I already have sewer and water. I'm talking about my parcel on the corner of Lake Lucy and Powers. IIMayor Hamilton: I think it's kind of hard for us to answer that now. I guess that should be part of the study to address properties like yours and what the IIalternatives would be because we just don't have the information. Brian? c.);> , Brian Tichy: Gary, are you setting the pipes on the north side of the road? Gar Warren: The cu I �v Y current 1,300 feet is on the north side. The actual original feasibility looked at the south side and had a sketch on that but there wasn't a lot... The fact that we have 1,300 feet on the north side, they're not going to be... II Brian Tichy: To hook up... IGary Warren: We would jetjack underneath the road. Resident: If you come on the north side, how much beyond the right-of-way are coming into? ' ! you Gary Warren: I don't know. We'll 11 have to look at it. IResident: You're already at my front door. Mayor Hamilton: That's part of the feasibility study. It's hard to answer II that. Ted Coey: I think the reason a lot of us are here is because, as you know with I Lake Lucy Road being a problem and we've already got an assessment, in the future on the interceptor and we're going to get this and what I'm saying, we're all concerned about being able to afford to live there. I Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what you heard us saying. We're concerned about the same thing. 1 Ted Coey: I appreciate your comments and what Dale and a couple of the other councilmembers said. We like it there and I don't want to have to move because of a $20,000.00 assessment. I have problems with $4,000.00 on this road... IMayor Hamilton: Our goal is that you'll get hit for nothing. Ted Coey: That's what I wanted to hear. Thank you. II II 43 qty Council Meeting - JuI 11, 1988 ' !\ Resolution #88-75: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to authorize the feasibility study for Lake Lucy Road watermain as proposed including the comments made by the City Council. All voted in favor and the VJ , motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW TO EXPAND FIRE STATION, 7610 LAREDO DRIVE. ' Mayor Hamilton: Does anybody have any comments, questions? A motion would be in order. 1 Councilman Boyt: I have a comment. I think that we should, there's a comment in there about the addition of sugar maples. I think we should make that more specific and say, we want about 25% to be sugar maples. Barbara Dacy: 25% of the total trees? Councilman Boyt: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: What's wrong with the silver maple? cA Councilman Boyt: Maple trees, how would that be? ,4„2. Mayor Hamilton: Any maple tree is nice. What are those red ones with the red , leaves. Councilman Boyt: Those are red maple. Maybe there's general agreement that we want to fix a percentage on that. The other thing I thought was worth some discussion here was Planning Commission member Batzli brought up handicap accessibility. I guess philosophicly, we're building a public building, it ought to be handicap accessible. Councilman Johnson: By State law. Councilman Boyt: It's a little frightening the cost of putting in an elevator into the fire station. Somehow or another I think we have to deal with the idea that the building is completely handicap accessible. Barbara Dacy: You may want to address that from the construction standpoint. We...with the builder inspector, it's not required by State Law. Going beyond that, you might want to address that. Jim Chaffee: When I attended the Planning Commission, when they did address this, it was my impression that he was getting at the voting that was going on at the fire station. He was, I thought, that was going on down in the basement. It's not. It goes on upstairs. It doesn't address your concerns about being totally handicap accessible. The cost of the elevators is way beyond our ' capacity at this time. It is not required by Code. Mayor Hamilton: It's a fire station. It's not someplace where handicaps should be going. We're not going to have handicap people as fire people, I wouldn't think. •