Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.15.90 Council Minutes MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR OCTOBER 15, 1990 1. Mayor Kuchera called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Kuchera, Mayer, McKnight, Sprute, Galler. Members Absent: None. Also Present: Administrator Thompson, Attorney Grannis. 2. MOTION by McKnight, second by Sprute to approve the agenda with the following changes: a. Break after Item 6a or 10:00 P.M. b. Remove bills from Consent Agenda for discussion. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. MOTION by Mayer, second by McKnight to approve the minutes of the September 26, 1990 special meeting. VOTING FOR: Mayer, McKnight, Kuchera, Sprute. ABSTAIN: Galler. MOTION CARRIED. 4. MOTION by Sprute, second by Kuchera to approve the minutes of the October 1, 1990 regular meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. MOTION by Sprute, second by Mayer to adopt RESOLUTION NO. R75-90 acknowledging the grant of $67,480 from MnDOT for Flagstaff Bridge No. SAP-212-101-01. APIF, MOTION CARRIED . 6. MOTION by Galler, second by McKnight to adopt RESOLUTION NO. R76-90 acknowledging a grant of $78,604.00 from MnDOT for Flagstaff Bridge No. SAP-212-101-02. APIF, MOTION CARRIED . 7. MOTION by Galler, second by McKnight to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a. Approve Pay Estimate No.2 - Project 90-3 - $44,190.20 - Brown and Cris, Inc. b. Approve Pay Estimate No. 1 - Project 90-6 - $15,689.03 - C.G. Construction. c. Approve Pay Estimate No. 2 - Project 89-3 - $212,603.35 - Rice Lake Contracting. d. Approve School/Conference Request - Building Inspector. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. Mayor Kuchera opened a public hearing at 7:15 P.M. to consider the assessment for Project 89-3 (1990 Street Improvement Project). Administrator Thompson presented an overview of the project, noting costs and the Council's assessment policy. Administrator Thompson also noted various concerns which has arisen as outlined in his memo dated October 12, 1990 and introduced letters protesting the assessments from Barbara Ackerman and Tom and Carolyn Ryan. The following testimony was heard: Lea Blake: Eng. Kaldunski: Lea Blake: Eng. Kaldunski: Lea Blake: Why is the curb being lowered in front of my house? To improve drainage. The two trees in front of my house were damaged. Some roots were cut, but the trees should not be affected. I was told by one of the City project inspectors that I would not have to pay for sidewalks. Council Minutes - 10/15/90 - Page 2 Adm. Thompson: Pat Ostlie: There must have been a misunderstanding because it was proposed to assess sidewalk from the start of the project. Why are the costs so much above the estimates? Adm. Thompson: The costs actually came in lower than projected. The City never gave actual assessment costs at the public hearing, but estimated it would be $900 to $2,200 per typical lot without sanitary sewer. The assessments are higher than previous projects mainly due to sanitary sewer, sidewalks and a 44 foot wide street. Pat Ostlie: Adm. Thompson: Pat Ostlie: How much is the sanitary sewer? Approximately $975 for your lot. It does not appear you will be able to get my driveway and alley to drain. There should be enough fall to handle the drainage. Who is liable if someone slips on ice due to poor drainage? If it is due to negligent design or construction, it would probably be the City's liability. Mayor Kuchera opened a public hearing at 8:00 A.M. to consider the proposed assessments for Project 90-3 (Dakota County Estates Sixth Addition). The hearing was continued until later in the meeting. Eng. Kaldunski: Pat Ostlie: Att. Grannis: Ron Thelen: Project assessment. Adm. Thompson: Lea Blake: Adm. Thompson: Carolyn Ryan: Adm. Thompson: Corner lots are given credits on this project, but the Tutewohl property never received a credit for the 1987 Street Improvement The Council adopted the corner lot credit policy after that project and, therefore, that lot did not receive a credit. I still feel my street is too low. You had complained numerous times before of the poor drainage on your block and that was the only way to correct it. I do not feel the spreading of the corner lot credit to the mid- point of adjacent lots is fair. The Council deliberated over the assessment policy for a long time and felt it was the most fait and equitable way to assess projects. Becmffie of the odd designs of lots in the old part of the City it is extremely hard to make anyone assessment policy "fair and equitable" in all property owners' viewpoints. That is why the public hearing is held, to get your input. Why was I assessed for sanitary sewer service when I was told I didn't get service off of First Street? Karen Finstuen: I told your wife that your property received water service off of Spruce Street and you were not being assessed for that. You do receive sanitary sewer service off of First Street and that is being assessed. Allen Wutschke: Mayor Kuchera opened a public hearing at 8:15 P.M. to consider the proposed assessment roll for Project 90-6 (1990 Sidewalk Improvement Project). The hearing was continued until later in the meeting. Tom Ryan: Eng. Kaldunski: Tom Ryan: : The street was dropped. Will my water line freeze? All water lines have a minimum cover of 7 feet. I have not seen the City Engineer out on the project staking and taking elevations. Council Minutes - 10/15/90 - Page 3 Mayor Kuchera: Joan Stapf: Adm. Thompson: Carolyn Ryan: Adm. Thompson: Att. Grannis: Lea Blake: Pat Ostlie: Adm. Thompson: Pat Ostlie: Adm. Thompson: Harry McElmury: I disagree. I've seen the City Engineer on the project several times. Why wasn't Second Street south of Walnut assessed? Because the short side of the corner lot abuts Walnut Street. Will you grant deferments for the elderly? If there is a written request the Council will consider it. The Council will have to first adopt an ordinance. My husband is disabled. What is the interest rate on assessments? 8.2%. Why? ~% over the last bond sale. My lot runs north and south on First Street. Why didn't I receive a corner lot credit? Adm. Thompson: The two lots were split east/west, which created a lot with the short side abutting First Street. Also I'd like to correct an error. The last bond issue was 6.7% so the interest rate should be 7.2%. Ann Rother: Adm. Thompson: Jerry Ancell: Eng. Kaldunski: Jerry Ancell: Ann Rother: Adm. Thompson: Jackie Dooley: Eng. Kaldunski: Jackie Dooley: Eng. Kaldunski: Pat Ostlie: Adm. Thompson: John Manke: Adm. Thompson: John Manke: Adm. Thompson: Why does the 3rd Street side of my lot get assessed? It picks up a portion of the corner lot credit. (DeBates) What is a typical block? A typical block would be approximately 360 feet. Don't you think it would be more appropriate to state a specific length rather than "to midpoint" in your policy? How nuch am I being assessed for on Walnut Street? 30 feet. How long before I hear back from the contractor's insurance company? I don't know. Why did you replace the entire sidewalk? Not all sidewalks were bad, but it was felt all should be replaced so it didn't look "patchwork". Why was the cost underestimated so much? I don't feel they were underestimated. Why was the First Street assessment so much higher than the Oak Street assessment on the same lot? Oak Street didn't have sanitary sewer, storm sewer or sidewalk and it was a narrower street. Why was the lot assessed for sanitary sewer when it is served off of Oak Street? The lot indirectly benefits from the First Street sewer because the Oak Street sewer flows into it. Council Minutes - 10/15/90 - Page 4 Mayor Kuchera: up 75-80% of the John DeBates: Eng. Kaldunski: Jack Bohm: Adm. Thompson: Mayor Kuchera: Eng. Kaldunski: Carolyn Ryan: Adm. Thompson: Pat Ostlie: Allen Wutschke: Jack Bohm: Ron Thelen: Adm. Thompson: You must remember there was a lot Streets than Oak and 4th Streets. project. Where does the water service to my property go? more done on First and Walnut Also, the City is picking Walnut Street. Bus traffic has a lot to do with street damange. Can they pay part of the fees? There is no statutory authority. Can the buses be kept off? I think you can ban trucks but not buses. Was water service assessed? No. I would like to thank Councilmember Sprute and Mayor Kuchera for coming around during the project. Can you straighten out the power poles by my place? The Council should consider a speed limit in my alley. No appeal may be made unless it is presented in writing before or during the public hearing? Yes. (Ron Thelen and JoAnn Pierce submitted written appeals.) MOTION by Sprute, second by Mayer to close the hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. Councilmember Sprute thanked Administrator Thompson and Engineer Kaldunski for the excellent job they did in presenting the information and answering questions. The following issues were discussed by the Council. a. contingency, b. sidewalk assessments, c. interest rate, d. sanitary sewer service replacement assessments, e. shallow lot credits, f. newly installed sanitary sewer service assessments, g. actual front footage of the "Gerster" lot, h. credit for Tutewohl property, and i. "Ackerman" assessment. The Council agreed that the contingency should be set at 2% and interest rate at 7.2%. The Council further agreed that newly installed services should be assessed at 100% and replacements at 25%. Because the sidewalk portion of the project consisted of replace- ment and MnDOT requirements for sidewalk installation, sidewalks would not be assessed. The Council further agreed that since the shallow lot credit to the Falls property shallow lot credit resulted in excessive costs being assessed along Elm Street, the City would pay for the shallow lot credit. Since the corner lot credit was inappropriately applied against the "Ackerman" property it was deleted from the assessment roll. Due to an error discovered on the City maps, the Gerster property shallow lot credit was deleted and assessed at the full 60' width. Finally, it was agreed that the Tutewohl property would receive a $500 credit because it had not received a corner lot credit during the 1987 Street Improvement Project. The Council directed staff to prepare a revised assessment roll incorporating the aforementioned revision. The matter was Council Minutes - 10/15/90 - Page 5 tabled until later in the meeting. 10. Mayor Kuchera reopened a public hearing to consider the proposed assessment roll for Project 90-3 (Dakota County Estates Sixth Addition). Administrator Thompson pre- sented a brief overview of the project and assessment roll. No further comments were heard. MOTION by Galler, second by McKnight to close the hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. MOTION by Mayer, second by Kuchera to adopt RESOLUTION NO. R77-90 adopting the assessment roll for Project 90-3 as submitted. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 12. Mayor Kuchera reopened a public hearing to consider the proposed assessment roll for Project No. 90-6 (Sidewalk Improvement Project). Administrator Thompson submitted a revised assessment roll noting the contingency had been eliminated and the 50' strip at Division and Elm Street had been identified as City property and incorporated into the roll. Councilmember Sprute and Engineer Kaldunski noted that two driveways had been replaced in conjunction with the project and had not been incorporated into the assessment roll. Staff was directed to identify the properties benefitted by the drive- ways. The hearing was continued until later in the meeting. 13. Pat Finnegan, John McNamara and Chuck Kraft were present to request a plat waiver to split a 24! acre parcel into two parcels. Administrator Thompson stated that since the property was within the MUSA boundaries, the Council was required to review the request. Administrator Thompson noted that staff and the Planning Commission had re- viewed the request and recommended that it be denied due to the potential adverse im- pact the split could have on future development of the property and potential access problems. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the split. Administrator Thompson stated the Planning Commission and staff supported the split if it was done in conjunc- tionwith a PUD to ensure orderly development. Mr. McNamara stated he would not pur- sue a PUD because he had no intention of developing the property. Chuck Kraft and Pat Finnegan stated that they did not believe the split would adversely affect the future development and Mr. Kraft added potential future assessments were not a great concern. MOTION by Galler, second by Mayer to direct staff prepare a resolution denying the request. VOTING FOR: Sprute, Galler, Mayer, McKnight. ABSTAIN: Kuchera. MOTION CARRIED. 14. James Reisinger was present to discuss changing his grading permit by reducing the width of the driveway to 20 feet. It was the consensus of the Council that the reduc- tion was acceptable, but such action would not relieve Mr. Reisinger of the conditions placed on the permit. MOTION by Mayer, second by McKnight to revise the Reisinger grading permit by reducing the driveway to 20 feet and that the culvert has to be fixed. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 15. Administrator Thompson presented the revised assessment roll for Project No. 89-3 which incorporates the changes agreed to previously during the meeting. MOTION by McKnight, second by Kuchera to adopt RESOLUTION NO. R78-90 adopting the assessment roll for Project 89-3. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 16. City Engineer informed the City Council that the two driveways in Project 90-6 appeared to affect the Oldenberg properties. The Council directed staff to revise the assessment roll incorporating the driveways. 17. The Council took a brief recess. 18. The Council next considered the upcoming tree planting program and the disposition of the 12" elm trees the City had received. It was the consensus that the City adver- tise a tree giveaway program for Farmington residents only with a limit of 5 trees per Council Minutes - 10/15/90 - Page 6 person. MOTION by Kuchera, second by Sprute to plant trees in the Project 89-3 project area if there is any portion of the 2% contingency remaining after completion of the project. If not, the trees will be planted in the spring. APIF, MOTION CARRIED . 19. MOTION by Galler, second by Sprute to approve payment of the bills with the removal of the payment to the American Elm Institute. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 20. Councilmember Mayer stated that due to the number of special meetings, the Council should consider paying additional compensation to Councilmembers for special meetings. Councilmember Sprute stated that he also favored the proposal as he saw numerous special meetings in the future due to City growth. Councilmember Galler stated that the the Administrator and Department Heads should also receive compensation for special meetings if the Council were to receive additional compensation. The Council directed staff to poll other communities relating to Council and Department Head compensation and discuss the matter at the next Council meeting. 21. Mayor Kuchera reopened the public hearing to consider the proposed assessment roll for Project No. 90-6. Administrator Thompson presented the revised assessment roll incorporating the driveways on the Oldenberg property. MOTION by Galler, second by Kuchera to close the hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 22. MOTION by Galler, second by McKnight to adopt the RESOLUTION NO. R79a-90 adopting the assessment roll for Project No. 90-6. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 23. During roundtable, the following items were discussed: a. Staff to send a letter to Jerry Ristow explaining it is not the Council's intent to charge Mr. Ristow for any costs relating to Project No. 87-7 or legal costs relating to the utility easement. b. Update on construction projects. 24. MOTION by Galler, second by Kuchera to adjourn at 1:20 A.M. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, :d~r. ~ 0(..( //-' I..?~ . rry Tho~son City Administrator 11 J qu \) ~ . \ f).AI ~ ~~& ~ ~ ~~ruw~"" ~L-\ ...)M \\ ~ f\ ~ 01.0 '{i't' Approved