Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/30/1981CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota April 30, 1981 Minutes of the special meeting of the City Council of Apple Valley, Dakota County, Minnesota, held April 30, 1981, at 8:00 o'clock p.m. at Valley Middle School. PRESENT: Mayor Garrison; Councilmembers Branning, Overgard, and Savanick; Clerk Asleson. ABSENT: Councilmember Kelly. Mayor Garrison called the public hearing to order at 8:00 p.m. for the purpose of considering residential street lighting systems and noted receipt of the affidavit of publication of the hearing notice. He explained that under current City policy, street lights are installed in new subdivisions as they are developed. Public hear- ings have previously been held for street lighting in the Greenleaf subdivisions, the North Apple Valley area and the South Apple Valley area. This hearing is to consider street lighting in the remaining platted areas that do not now have it. John Gretz reviewed the lighting systems which would consist of 100 watt high pressure sodium lights mounted on 12-foot high laminated wood standards. Lights would be located at all street intersections, the back of cul-de-sacs and at approximately 400-foot intervals throughout the area. He reviewed the costs for each area, as shown on the maps, and itemized in the preliminary feasibility report. Mr. Gretz said two subdivisions have not been included, Knottywoods and the area known as the Ross Addition. Knottywoods was not included because it does not have public utilities now and relbcation of any lights would be required when Pilot Knob Road is constructed. The Ross Addition was not included because it has a private road and the City does not have easements. Mr. Gretz reviewed a proposed cost adjustment for single family, townhouse and apart- ment land use differentials based on the dwelling units per acre. Townhouse units would be charged 40 percent of the single family rate. Apartment units would be charged 14 percent of the single family rate. Mayor Garrison then asked for questions and comments from the public. (See details of questions and answers attached.) After everyone present had been given an oppor- tunity to speak and written comments were noted, Mayor Garrison said because so many questions were raised, the hearing would not be closed tonight. The questions will be considered and another notice of the time of the continued hearing will be sent to all property owners. He also suggested that the notice will contain some type of questionnaire to the residents to help determine their positions. MOTION: of Overgard, seconded by Branning, setting a special meeting at 8:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 7, 1981, at the City Hall for the purpose of considering the naming of parks. Ayes - 4 - Nays - O. MOTION: of Overgard, seconded by Branning, to adjourn. Ayes - 4 - Nays - O. The meeting was adjourned at 10:14 o'clock p.m. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota April 30, 1981 Details of Questions and Answers on Street Light Hearing Art Linfors, 196 Cimarrom Road, asked for an explanation of why the lighting is being proposed. Mayor Garrison said rather than handling street lighting requests on an individual subdivision basis, this hearing was set to consider all remaining platted areas of the City. Max Norton, 190 Cimarron Road, asked who wants the lights? Mayor Garrison said the lights are proposed for safety reasons for both pedestrians and vehicles. Jim Moser, 469 Reflection Road, asked what the cost of electricity only is? Mr. Gretz said $4.75 per month per light or approximately $2.43 per lot per quarter. Mr. Moser asked what kind of rate increases can be anticipated in the future. Ed Brunkhorst, of Dakota Electric, said a request for a rate increase has been filed with the Public Service Commission If approved, the street light rate would increase approximately 5¢. The overall rate increase request is 5.4 percent. Mr. Moser said some of the reasons given for lights are valid, but they are decora- tive and don,t really serve the purpose. He said he now has a light on the curve near his house, which was installed by the City, and he doesn't need any more light. He agreed the end of the cul-de-sac probably needs more light, but he does not want one in front of his lot. He said because of energy cost considerations, lights should only be put where someone wants one, not all over. There is nothing wrong with a scattered lighting system. When someone askes for a light, it can be put up. Don Romain, 405 Reflection Road, said the street does not have underground wiring and already has a lot poles and wires along it. Why not put up about three large over- head lights, mounted on existing poles, instead of the decorative lights? Mayor Garrison said this is an alternative that can be considered and asked the cost of such lights. Mr. Brunkhorst said it is about $9.00 per month and is the rental rate paid for all such street lights. He said the rate shown for the decorative street lights is the lowest rate because the cost of the fixtures is being paid by the con- sumer. He also said lights could be mounted on the existing poles. Mr. Moser said if the lights are put in, he doesn't want a light and he does not want to be assessed for the cost of any lights either. Only those who want the lights should pay for them. Mr. Asleson commented on the assessment policy in the law stating the cost assessed is for the benefit to the property owner of the service received. Those who do not want the lights would receive the same benefit as those who do want the lights. Councilmember Savanick said the lights do function as a safety factor even though they are called decorative lights. She also said the light now in place near Mr. Moser's house is being paid for by everyone through taxes. Mr. Asleson said all the large street lights installed by the City at major intersections and areas where there are specific problems are paid by the general fund and those costs are not assessed to individual property owners. Mr. Romain said he is in favor of the lights and wants them in his area, but he does not want additional poles installed. Councilmember Savanick asked if lower wattage lights could be installed on existing poles? Mr. Brunkhorst said yes. Mr. Romain asked if homeowners can prepay the cost of the fixtures? Mr. Asleson said the ordinance treats street lighting as an operating cost even though part of the cost CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota April 30, 1981 Page 2 - Details of Questions and Answers on Street Light Hearing is for fixtures. If the cost billed on the quarterly water bills is not paid by the property owner and is delinquent, then that amount would be assessed and become payable with the property taxes. This would be a one-year assessment and would be repeated annually for delinquencies. Mr. Romain said the cost for all street lighting in the City should be combined and paid for by the City. Councilmember Overgard asked if the cost of the fixtures only could be assessed? Mr. Sheldon said under the Dakota Electric franchise, only annual delinquencies would be assessed. Mr. Asleson said Dakota Electric remains the owner of the lights. Councilmember Branning said if all areas of the City have street lighting, he would agree that the energy costs should be paid by taxes. Mr. Romain asked Mr. Brunkhorst if the cost of fixtures can be prepaid? Mr. Brunk- horst said individuals could not pay Dakota Electric directly, but the City could pay the total amount. Mr. Asleson said to do so, the City would have to issue bonds, pay Dakota Electric the total amount and assess all costs to the property owners. Pam Sohlberg, 99 Hidden Meadow Road, said if lights are installed on the large exist- ing poles, it will call attention to the poles and make them more obvious than the shorter decorative lights would. Ron Anderson, 266 Cimarron Road, asked what determines the lots to be charged for lights? Mayor Garrison said it is the number of platted lots, but does not include outlots. Mr. Asleson said it only includes lots on which houses can be built. Russ Prince, 7200-144th Court, commented on cost issues. He said he has lived here since 1978 and has had three breakins and it is less expensive to have good street lights than breakins. He agrees the capital costs should be assessed to the property owners. He also suggested that the energy costs be spread city wide and have Dakota Electric add that to the electric bills for all residences which would reduce City administrative costs. Jim Valentyn, 13641 Elkwood Drive, said if the costs are assessed over 10 years, it would be another item that would have to be paid when a house is sold. Mr. Asleson said the City does not require that assessments be paid when property is sold, but some banking institutions do before closing a mortgage. Mr. Lindfors said he is a retired police officer and lights are not a crime deterrent. Most breakins happen during the day, when no one is at home, and street lights are energy wasters. Florence Hughes, 124 Cimarron Court, said a light is shown in front of their house. They already have poles, a transformer and a hydrant there and do not want a light too. She also commented on loss of power in the area and said it happens often and is sometimes out for several days. Mr. Brunkhorst said the frequent power outages in the Palomino Hills area are caused by trees. The trees need to be trimmed, but many residents in that area will not allow Dakota Electric on their property to trim the trees. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota April 30, 1981 Page 3 - Details of Questions and Answers on Street Light Hearing Dorothy Galles, 309 Cimarron Road, asked if there can be a vote by the residents on whether or not they want the lights? Mr. Asleson said no, only a question involving dollars can be put on a ballot. Lynne Kline, 13951 Galway Court, said she is in favor of the lights in her area. Anthony Nelson, 890 Redwood Drive, commented on the inefficiency of the proposed fix- tures and suggested the alternate type of fixtures as he has done at previous hearings. He said he has given Mr. Gretz snapshots of these lights being used in residential areas. He has measured light from this type of fixture and with the smaller bulb, it is more efficient. Mr. Gretz said he and Mr. Brunkhorst are reviewing these lights and are preparing a report comparing the two lights. Jim Newcomer, 13639 Elkwood Drive, questioned the installation and fixture cost and asked for a breakdown. Mr. Brunkhorst said it includes 10-year financing. The pole costs $110, the fixture costs $137 plus the lamp and installation. Councilmember Savanick asked what Dakota Electric's interest rate on borrowing is? Mr. Brunkhorst said they borrow from three sources and the rates average 7 1/2 to 9 percent. Pat Valentyn, 13641 Elkwood Drive, asked if the City has checked the cost of purchasing the lights itself? Mr. Gretz said it has and cannot be done cheaper because Dakota Electric buys the lights in such large quantities. Mrs. Valentyn asked how property zoned for multiple dwellings will be charged? Mr. Gretz said property that is zoned, but not platted, will not be included because lights will be included there when it develops. Property that is platted for multiple dwellings will be charged at the rates previously reviewed; townhouse units at 40 percent of the single family rate and apartment units at 14 percent of the single family rate. Mr. Gretz then read a letter a letter from Keith Sterling, a resident of South Apple Valley, commenting on the cost study of the lights he did. Mr. Sterling's letter concluded that install- ing the lights as proposed is the least expensive method of doing so. Glen Galles, 309 Cimarron Road, said he is concerned about the high tax rates in the City. He said if the costs are assessed to the property owners and paid with their taxes, the interest paid can be deducted from income tax; the interest included in the payments to Dakota Electric cannot. Sarah Mardell, 12918 Denmark Avenue, read a petition signed by residents of the Woods subdivisions. Of the 25 homes in the neighborhood, 92 percent are against lighting of any kind in their area. She said they do not believe it will promote the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. Bill Heiser, 110 Hidden Meadow Road, said he moved here from Toledo, Ohio. There residents could petition for street lights and if 51 percent wanted the lights, they were installed. Why can't that be done here? Pam Sohlberg, 99 Hidden Meadow Road, spoke representing several other residents and said they are all in favor of the lights. Terry Langager, 13520 Elkwood Drive, said he is in favor of the lights. Dale Peterson, 13532 Lower Elkwood Court, said he is in favor of the lights and it is so dark in that area that it is difficult to read street signs at night. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota April 30, 1981 Page 4 - Details of Questions and Answers on Street Light Hearing Mr. Fitzharris said the arguments for street lights in the cul de sacs do not apply to the other areas of Farquar Hills. Mrs. Valentyn said she is in favor of the lights. Bill Rabe, 4877 Dominica Way, asked that the Council consider splitting the Farquar Lake Addition from the Farquar Hills Addition because the Farquar Lake Addition is similar to the Woods subdivisions. They do not have sewer and water in the area and do not want the lights. Ann Loch, 13411 Diamond Path, said they do not want lights in the area and do not need lights because of the nature of their area. Max Norton, 190 Cimarron Road, said he is opposed to the lights. Let those who want the lights petition for them and pay for them. Melanie Dawber, 13644 Elkwood Drive, said she is opposed to the lights and does not want one on her property. Larry Kouba, 202 Cimarron Road, said he is opposed to the lights. He lives on a curve and is willing to put up with the traffic problems of vehicles missing the curve and damaging his shrubbery. He also said many homes in the area have already put in their own lights. Mr. Fitzharris said he already has a transformer and mailboxes on his property and he does not want a light on his property. Mr. Valentyn said the light can be placed on his property. He asked what the intensity of the light is? Mr. Brunkhorst said at 75 to 80 feet, at ground level, it is .02 foot candles. He also said the proposed lights illuminate on three sides and the fourth side, facing the houses, is shielded. Mr. Valentyn asked if the underground wiring is in place for the lights? Mr. Brunkhorst said yes. Ron Anderson, 266 Cimarron Road, said he is opposed to the lights. Mr. Langager said ho would be in favor of dividing Farquar Hills from the other sub- divisions in Area IV and considering it separately for lighting. Susan Almeida, 13644 Elkwood Drive, said she is in favor of the lights and one can Be in her yard. Lynn Johnson, 142 Chaparral Drive, said she is opposed to the lights and when I35E is constructed, lights from the highway will also illuminate the area. Mrs. Hughes said residents in the older areas of Palomino Hills seem to be opposed to the lights and those in the newer areas seem to be in favor of them. Can Area III be divided? Mayor Garrison said it could be considered on an individual subdivision basis. Mrs. Almeida asked who will be responsible for replacing the sod and restoring the area after the lights are installed? Mayor Garrison said the contractor doing the work will. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota April 30, 1981 Page 5 - Details of Questions and Answers on Street Light Hearing Mrs. Valentyn said most of the lots in Farquar Hills were sodded last year and if the sod is replaced it should be replaced with good quality sod. Councilmember Branning said when the lights were installed in North Apple Valley, in most cases, the original sod was carefully taken up and relaid in the same places. Mrs. Loch said since most of the people in the Farquar Lake area are opposed to the lights and they are not needed, can this area and the Woods subdivisions be eliminated from Area IV now? She also said that by removing these areas, the cost of lighting in the Farquar Hills Addition will be lower. Mayor Garrison said since not all of the people in the Farquar Lake area are here, that decision would not be made tonight. He said the hearing on all areas will be held open and another notice sent to residents when a date for the continued hearing is set. It was also noted that a number of written comments have been received prior to this meeting and they will be considered as part of these proceedings.