HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.c. Baptist Church Property / Hawkins Pond ProjectThe last meeting which was held, at the time of this writing was
on Thursday, July 21, 1988, with four of the church's deacons,
Pastor Ed Johnson, Mayor Hoke, Dean Johnson, Rich Hefti and
myself. The purpose of the meeting was to clarify the city's
position on all of the matters surrounding the various projects.
A follow up letter to Pastor Ed, summarizing the city's position
is attached for your reference.
An attempt was made to clarify the benefit to the church of the
city's overall package proposal to all of the issues.
On Sunday evening the Deacons voted to "opt out" of the project,
build their own holding pond and request the designation of
50,000 yards of material from the Hawkins Project.
We have requested another meeting with the church to advise them
that city staff will recommend that the city continue with the
project, as proposed and that the fill material, from the project
simply be designated to be removed from the project site. The
bidding contractors will determine what method of di.sposnl will
cause the least cost to the project to determine the lowest bid.
s
;i r
4o,(J
spy"' 4 f
TO:
Mayor Hoke
Councilmembers: Nnppex
Oxborough
Walsh
Wippermann I;
i
FROM:
Stephan Jilk, Administrator/Clerk`
DATE:
July 29, 1988
RE:
Baptist Church;Property/Hawkins Pond Project
Over the
last 18-24 months city staff has met several times with
representatives of the Rosemount Baptist Church to discuss:
A.
Sanitary sewer and water easements for utilities going
through their property.
B.
Methods of collecting hookup fees to those utilities.
C.
Purchase of storm sewer (Hawkins Pond) ponding
easements.
D.
The option for the church to "opt out" of the Hawkins
Pond Project and construct their own pond for their
property runoff.
E.
The availability of fill material from the project
(Hawkins Pond) to place on the church's property for
fill.
The last meeting which was held, at the time of this writing was
on Thursday, July 21, 1988, with four of the church's deacons,
Pastor Ed Johnson, Mayor Hoke, Dean Johnson, Rich Hefti and
myself. The purpose of the meeting was to clarify the city's
position on all of the matters surrounding the various projects.
A follow up letter to Pastor Ed, summarizing the city's position
is attached for your reference.
An attempt was made to clarify the benefit to the church of the
city's overall package proposal to all of the issues.
On Sunday evening the Deacons voted to "opt out" of the project,
build their own holding pond and request the designation of
50,000 yards of material from the Hawkins Project.
We have requested another meeting with the church to advise them
that city staff will recommend that the city continue with the
project, as proposed and that the fill material, from the project
simply be designated to be removed from the project site. The
bidding contractors will determine what method of di.sposnl will
cause the least cost to the project to determine the lowest bid.
If the Baptist Church decides it is in their best interest to
pursue the construction of their own pond and legal action to
reduce or delete their assessments for Hawkins Pond and legal
action to receive the fill material that is their decision. I
believe we must proceed with the project as planned.
Staff feels strongly that the proposal, as outlined in the letter
to Pastor Johnson, is as reasonable as can be offered by the city
without the action becoming detrimental to the rest of the
community.
Further information may be available at the time of the council
meeting Tuesday.
lj
� R� � • ,lit
krT f1!lSE-M()tIII i t.11fitIf r 11 OWt
ose 'n,01111.
July 22, 1988
Dr. Edwin Johnson, Senior Pastor
First Baptist Church
14400 Diamond Path West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear Pastor Johnson:
I would like to thank you and the church's Deacons for taking the time
to meet with Mayor Hoke, Rich Hefti, Dean Johnson and myself on
Thursday this week. I feel the meeting gave us all a valuable
opportunity to share our thoughts and concerns about the many projects
involving your church's property here in Rosemount.
Over the last two years the many meetings and discussions held on costs
for the project have been, I am sure, for you and your membership a
source of concern and worry,~. I hope this meeting was an opportunity to
lay some of that worry and concern to rest for you.
I would like to take this time to outline, for you, a summation of the
items of easement payments and assessments as we discussed them. I
hope this information will be understandable and clear enough for your
review and final decision. It is my hope that this issue can be
resolved with a satisfaction that we (the city and the church) have
worked together to resolve to the best end for us both.
Easement Payments To The Church:
Sanitary Sewer:
1.57 acres - Permanent Sanitary Sewer
.90 acres - Temporary Sanitary Sewer
1.57 @ $7200. = $11,304 (Temporary calculated at 10%
.90 @ 720. = 648 of Permanent)
Interest for
20 mo. @ 8% - 1 593
13,
Total Sanitary Sewer is $13,545
0 •
Dr. Edwin Johnson, Senior Pastor
July 22, 1988
Page 2
Storm Sewer Pond Easements:
1.50 Acres Original Ponding Easement
1.50 x 7200 = $10,800
Interest for
20 mo. @ 8% = 1 440
.55 Acres Additional: to Eliminate Landlocked Parcel South
of Original Ponding Easement
.55 x 7200 = 3 960
Total Ponding is $16,200.
Future Watermain Easements:
15 Feet Permanent Easement Adjacent To Sewer Easement
.46 acres @ $8000/acre - $ 3600
10 Feet Construction Easement
.31 acres @ 10% of $8000/acre = 248
3 -9 -4 -9 -
Total
4
Total Easement Acouisitions:
Sanitary Sewer $13,545
Storm Sewer Pond 16,200
Future Watermain 31848
Total $33,593
Assessment Costs To The Church:
Hawkins Pond:
Based upon the square foot cost for property within the
drainage district for the Hawkins Pond Project of $.0157/sq.
ft. times the church's property, the estimated assessment
would be $24,922. The city is willing to reduce the total
acreage used in calculating the assessment by the acreage
acquired for city easements, which is 4.08 acres thus reducing
the assessment by $2,790 leaving a Ponding Assessment of
$22,132.
Dr. Edwin
July 22,
Page 3
i
Johnson, Senior Pastor
1988
i
Sewer Line:
Watermain:
Because the city understands that the timing of the sanitary
sewer and future watermain are somewhat out of control of the
church, the city has proposed an acre type assessment for the
future benefit of the church/school development on the site.
This assessment method would cause the payments of assessments
for the sewer line benefits only for that portion of the
church's property being developed.
The sewer assessment paid would be based on an 1987 cost of
$23/foot and adding in, an inflation factor to the year that
the development and benefit occurred. This method of using an
acre type assessment versus a straight lateral foot method was
outlined in a letter to the city council from Dean Johnson, of
November 13, 1987. Please allow me to reference that here
(also attached) rather than reiterate it to you in writing.
As we've stated in our verbal discussions, this is a radical
change in our policy; but we feel it is appropriate for the
type of development proposed for this property. This same
method of assessing the church would be carried through for
the construction of the future watermain. This policy was
approved on November 17, 1987 by our city council.
Other Benefit:
Excavation of material from the construction of Hawkins Pond will
create many yards of quality fill material. We have discussed the
fact that the church wishes to have a portion of that fill material
so as to raise their property which lies near the parking area of
the existing church.
The city would be willing to designate, in our contract
specifications for the Hawkins Pond Project, that 50,000 yards or
more, if available, of that excavated material be hauled to the
church's property, leveled and seeded. The leveling would not be
such that it would be acceptable for, say soccer playing or
baseball fields, but of a general rough grade so as to be
acceptable to the church for future maintenance in mowing.
Placing a dollar value on this benefit has been a difficult one at
best as you sensed in our meeting; but receipt of that much fill
alone, from one'source?at one time would, we estimate be of at
least a value of $25,000 -$50,000 to the church.
If the church does not wish to accept the fill, there are other
abutting property owners that have requested the material. Our
•
Dr. Edwin Johnson, Senior Pastor
July 22, 198$
Page 4
cousulting engineer could prepare a plan that illustrates the
filling of your existing low area. We could not, however direct
our contractor,to construct a pond with this material, as we
discussed.
Pond Opt Out:
On Thursday we specifically discussed the church's consideration to
"Opt Out" of the Hawkins Project and construct a permanent holding
pond on their own property to alleviate a major portion of the
proposed assessments for Hawkins Pond. We reviewed the information
from Barr Engineering regarding the size, depth and required pond
liner needed to accomplish this. I won't reiterate the content of
that report as Len Reinhart has a copy of that information for your
further review.
Because of the acreage and excavation required to accomplish that,,
the city feels the church would benefit, in the long run, to
maintain the contribution to Hawkins Pond and retain the acreage
for your own future development of the envisioned "Campus". It is
felt that the cost, both in acreage and excavation costs, will not
be offset by the drop in your Hawkins Pond proposed assessment.
That final determination is yours to make, of course.
Future Street Extension:
A valid concern was raised on Thursday as to whether the city would
extend the now dead end street in Country Hills south through the
church property to 145th Street. This would, or could, cause a
major disruption in your proposed development plans and would be a
large potential assessment to be borne by the church.
We advised you then, and I will again, that city staff, and this
city council cannot hold future city councils from never extending
that street. What I can do is suggest that, for the record, our
city engineer, city planner and administration sees no reason, now
or in the future, as need to extend that street other than at the
request of the church for its own development.
We appreciate the vision you have for the development of the
"Campus" here in Rosemount. We feel very strongly that development
has occurred to its potential around your property; and along with
an adequate street system already in place, we see no future demand
or need to extend the street through unless it would, at your
request, serve your development.
Dr. Edwin Johnson, Senior Pastor
July 22, 1988
Page 5
Summary:
Easement Payments $33,583
Ponding Assessments $22,132
Excavation Material $25,000 - $50,000
Ponding Opt Out Loss of Acreage, Cost of Excavation
Future Road Construction City position is that it is not
needed other than for
church development
We also discussed the position the city is taking on this. It is that
this is a "package" deal so to speak. A major exception in our
assessment policy has been made to suggest the acre development use
approach. We are offering the excavation material, hauled, graded and
seeded; and of course, the easement payments which are due you through
the taking of that property.
We feel we have come as far as we can and still be able to defend this
position to other taxpayers in the community. We feel the "package" is
a good one, and one that is good for the church.
We hope you have the opportunity to review this and respond to us no
later than Thursday the 28th of July, 1988.
1 am enclosing a current copy of the proposed easements as we have
discussed for your files.
Again, thank you for your consideration and cooperation through all of
this.
Sincerely,
Stephan Jilk
Administrator/Clerk
ij
Enclosures
•
1,1>7 i
I g10(riliq QW111" my
7803 Glenroy Road
Minneapolis. MN 55435
612/830-0555
June 24, 1988
Mr. Rich lie fti
Director of Public Works
City of Rosemount
2.875 - 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Re: Evaluation of the Potential for Retaining Stormwater.Runoff
on the First Baptist Church of Rosemount and Lutheran Church of our
Savior Properties
Dear Mr. Hefti:
1A,
This letter summarizes our evaluation of the potential for retaining
stormwater runoff as proposed by the First Baptist Church of Rosemount and
the Lutheran Church of Our Savior.
DRAINAGE AND RETENTION ANALYSIS
Both of these churches have proposed to retain stormwater runoff on
their respective properties rather than discharging into the linwkins Pond
drainage system. Addressing these proposals requires allnlyzing rainfall
and snowmelt conditions over extended periods of time. In other areas of
the metro where design of landlocked ponds are necessary, a common approach
is to perform an average annual water balance evaluation. An average
annual water balance evaluation determines 'the volume of water entering and
leaving a study area on an average annual basis. in the case of landlocked
ponds, the volume leaving the pond is determined by analyzing evaporation
and infiltration characteristics. The difference between the volume
entering and the volume leaving a proposed landlocked pond in the volume
necessary for sustained retention.
For both proposals, we conducted an annual average water balance
computation which considered the following parameters:
• The drainage area tributary to the potential pond
• The amount of impervious drainage area
• The average annual precipitation
• The average annual runoff
• The average annual pond evaporation
• The estimated average annual infiltration through the pond bottom
Mr. Rich Hefti ,June 24, 1988 Pape 2
The average annual precipitation, runoff and evaporation for the Rosemount
area was obtained from the "Hydrology Guide for Minnesota" prepared by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture -Soil Conservation Service, St. Paul,
Minnesota. Infiltration through the pond bottom was estimated from soil
permeability data obtained in a book entitled "Soil Mechanics" by Lambe and
Wh i tman.
Presently, the soils in both of the, proposed ponding areas are likely
very sandy. Such soils are highly porous and allow substantial quantities
of water to infiltrate through the ground. To design a permanent retention
basin with such porous subsoils would not be recommended for two reasons.
First, we have found that over extended periods of time, silts and organic
matter such as leaves and grass clippings tend to retard the flow of water
through the pond sediments. Second, the Hawkins Pond is also designed as a
landlocked pond. To design retention basins upstream which will not affect
the elevations of the Hawkins Pond requires significant ground infiltration
retardants (especially in the case of the First Baptist Church of Rosemount
because of its close proximity to the Hawkins Pond). If the retention
basin is constructed with a sandy bottom, water would flow from the church
pond through the ground at a rate fast enough to affect the level of
Hawkins Pond.
Thereforet for our analysis, we considered two soil types for a lining
at the bottom of each of the two proposed church retention ponds. The two
soil materials considered were a silt and a clay.
Another consideration when designing retention basins is how much
impervious drainage area would be constructed at ultimate development of
the watershed. For land zoned fot church use, it is commonly considered
that at ultimate development approximately 54 percent of the property would
be impervious (area taken up by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, and
various playground facilities). In the case of Lutheran Church of our
Savior, the 7.7 acre watershed is presently approaching ultimate
development conditions. In the case of the First Baptist Church of
Rosemount, the 27.5 acre watershed is still largely underdeveloped. This
analysis considered pond designs only for ultimate development.
Figures 1 and 2 are pond design charts for, the Lutheran Church of our
Savior and the First Baptist Church of Rosemount retention ponds,
respectively. Each chart contains curves for both silt bottom and clay
bottom ponds. Each curve relates the required pond retention depth with
the corresponding pond bottom areas.
Conclusions and Comments
It may be possible to construct retention basins for both church
watersheds so that they do not significantly impact the Hawkins Pond. A
silt or clay lined basin will be necessary to ensure this. There are
however other important design issues which must be considered, such as
groundwater effects. Constructing a retention pond will result in
increased groundwater elevations at least in the vicinity of each pond.
Therefore, the elevations of basements and low floors of existing and
future facilities must be considered. Groundwater gradients must be
C
0
a.
0
s�
CL
a�
0
7
6
5
4
3
`m
•
0
2
Area of Retension Pond (Acres)
Figure I
LUTHERAL CHURCH OF OUR SAVIOR
POND SIZING RETENSION
3
13
12
t 2 3 4
Area of Retension Pond (Acres)
Figure 2
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF ROSEMOUNT
RETENSION POND SIZING
Mr. Rich liefti June 24, 1988 Page 3
analyzed and compared with building elevations both upstream and downstream
of a proposed pond.
If you have any questions concerning the above information or analysis,
please call me.
Sin rely,
—S
-�S ven M. Klein
SMK/tmk
811/320,0