05/21/1981 - City Council Special 'err.war«..r......•..►..««:�w�Wr.........w--�+'^"°'4•"
NOTICE OF
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
Please be advised that a special meeting of the Eagan City Council is
scheduled for Thursday, May 21, 1981, at 6:.00 p.m. at the Eagan City
Hall.
AGENDA
1. Thomas Lake Storm Sewer Appeal
2. Other
s
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: MAY 20, 1981
r�
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The special City Council meeting for tomorrow evening was originally con-
sidered for 8:00 p.m. The meeting was scheduled later in the evening
due to a conflict Bob Rosene was experiencing. Mr. Rosene no longer has
a conflict; and, therefore, it was possible to move the meeting to an earlier
time in the evening. The meeting is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. , a time that
seems to best suit everybody's schedule, including the ability to view the
North Stars' game later in the evening.
rk�a*%" *�ar_
City Administrator
� v
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: MAY 20, 1981
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING, 5-21-81
A meeting is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. Thursday, May 21, 1981, to discuss
the Thomas Lake storm sewer appeal court action. The City is approaching
a crossroads with the lawsuit where various strategies and considerations
must be made with legal counsel. Apparently, there are some questions
that have been raised by the judge as to how the assessments were
established in relationship to actual costs for the project. The judge seems
to be approaching the lawsuit with arguments about cost rather than benefit.
The City has maintained for a number of years a philosophy of assessing
storm sewer over a City-wide area basis. Therefore, all storm sewer trunk
improvements are not necessarily assessed on a project by project basis.
If storm sewer .trunk assessments were levied on a project by projects basis,
it would be possible and quite common to assess areas of the City more
than once for trunk benefit. By establishing a rate in which the entire
City will be assessed for storm sewer and calculating the long range
improvements based on storm sewer districts, the assessments for each of
the residential areas become more equitable and equal as the City completes
its storm sewer improvements.
The Public Works and Engineering Departments are attempting to complete
a detailed analysis of the total costs as they impact this particular storm
sewer district that is under appeal. To analyze the costs of the Thomas
Lake storm sewer project in relationship to the revenues generated by
assessments would not be a fair analysis. All projects that affect that
storm sewer district must be considered as total expenditures in relationship
to the assessments of the Thomas Lake area in order to provide an accurate
cost analysis for the judge.
The City staff feels there are no alternatives at this point in time to change
the method of assessment due to the amount of storm sewer construction
that has been constructed and assessed to date. Two obvious alternatives
would be:
1. Taxation whereas all residents within the community would be
levied on a yearly basis for storm sewer improvements is an alter-
native. This method of collecting revenue for ultimately a City-
wide storm sewer system would cause some people to pay for a
benefit to the system a second time if they have been assessed
previously.
2. The second alternative would be to assess each project on a project
by project basis. The problem with this method of assessment
is that certain areas where there is considerable pipe installed
may pay 150 to 20¢ a square foot, whereas other areas would get
by on 2¢ to U a square foot. This would create inequities and
the City would more than likely be experiencing more lawsuits and
the inability to subsidize expenditures if this should occur.
5-21-81 Meeting Memo
May 20, 1981
Page Two
The City staff feels very confident that the formula and method of assessing
storm sewer based on a long range philosophy of creating a City-wide storm
sewer system is appropriate. In order to assure that the above alternatives
do not occur for handling storm sewer assessments within the City, it will
be necessary to protect the City's precedence by gaining a favorable
decision on the lawsuit. Proper strategy must be planned for both the
legal presentation and also the witnesses used throughout the hearing.
Any compromise of assessment would become a liability to the City and also
cause for precedence in the future which could again become costly and
end up being an additional tax burden.
City dministrator