HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.08.87 Special Council Minutes
MINUTES
COUNCIL MEETING
SPECIAL
OCTOBER 8, 1987
1. Mayor Akin called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Members Present: Akin, Kelly, Mayer, Sprute, Uhl
Members Absent: None
Also Present: Administrator Thompson, Attorney Grannis
2. The purpose of the meeting was to consider two assessment rolls and
discuss the 1988 operating budget.
3. Mayor Akin opened a public hearing to consider the proposed assessment
roll for Dakota County Estates 2nd Addition, Phase II and Dakota County
Estates Fourth Improvements (Projects 87-13 thru 87-15). Administrator
Thompson gave a summary of the assessment roll as follows:
Dakota County Estates 2nd Project costs:
Dakota County Estates 4th Project Costs:
Dakota County Estates 2nd Assessment:
Dakota County Estates 4th Assessment:
$355,769.46
$337,967.89
$ 4,561.15/Lot
$ 5,280.75/Lot
There being no further testimony, Mayor Akin closed the Public Hearing.
Motion by Kelly, second by Mayer to adopt RESOLUTION R69-87 adopting the
proposed assessment roll for projects 87-13 thru 87-16 as submitted. APIF,
motion carried.
4. The Council next considered the 1988 operating budget. Finance
Director Henneke presented a summary of the additional employee requests
impact on the various funds. Mayor Akin stated that he placed his
priorities on General Services. Councilman Sprute asked a number of
questions relating to the request for a Police Officer. Discussion was
tabled until later in the meeting.
5. Mayor Akin opened a public hearing at 7:30 P.M. to consider the
proposed assessment roll for the Section 24 Sanitary Sewer line (86-9).
Administrator Thompson presented a brief history of assessments in Sewer
District No.1. Administrator Thompson stated that the total assessable
project costs were $233,445.66, which could be assessed on either a per
acre basis or with lateral benefits taken into consideration. Mr. Thompson
stated that in either case the services should be assessed on an individual
basis. The following testimony was given:
Dave Grannis:
Akin Park Estates was not platted when the project was
ordered. Therefore the total acreage of Akin Park
Estates should be considered. I do have a concern with
assessing outlots directly, but they should be included
with the total acreage.
The Council can choose any assessment policy they wish
as long as it is equitable.
Can the McNamara property east of CSAH 31 be served by
this project?
Mayor Akin:
Mayor Akin:
No.
The Akin estate property has been assessed twice for
sewer service, but still has no direct access to sewer.
How will it benefit from sewer?
A lateral could be petitioned or when the property
adjacent to the estate is developed.
Would the lateral be assessed?
It would be assessed against benefited property.
The Akin estate property has a drainage easement over
two lots in Akin Park Estates, which renders them
virtually unbuildable. Do those lots benefit from the
sewer?
Yes.
When will the west 35 acres adjacent to the Akin Estate
property be developed?
That really doesn't figure into this hearing. It would
be hard for the council to deny the lateral if
petitioned.
Councilman Sprute: It would be interesting to know what the owners like.
Glenn Cook: Assessing with a lateral benefit charge is consistent
with what the Council has done in the past.
Councilman Kelly: I would lean towards the per acre charge.
Administrator Thompson presented copies of the various options to the
owners present at the meeting.
Glenn Cook:
Mayor Akin:
Admin. Thompson:
Mayor Akin:
Admin. Thompson:
Mayor Akin:
Dave Grannis:
Joe Akin:
Mayor Akin:
6. Motion by Akin, second by Kelly to adopt RESOLUTION NO. R70-87 adopting
the assessment roll for project 86-9 which conforms to option A2 presented
by the Administrator (Lateral Benefit Charge). APIF, motion carried.
7. The Council next considered the request for additional staffing in the
1988 budget. Much discussion followed regarding the impact of the
positions on the various parts of the budget. While it was agreed that the
positions were justified, adjustments would have to be made. Discussion
followed regarding the priority of additional employees. It was the
consensus of the council that the following budget adjustments be made:
1. Maintenance Worker III - Full funding
2. Engineer Technician - Full funding
3. Police Officer - No funding
4. Maintenance worker II - No funding
5. Full time Secretary - No funding
6. Police Overtime - Additional $6,000
7. General Services Part time - Additional $6,000 (to be divided
between streets and solid waste).
8. Finance Director Henneke stated regardless of what the Council set for
the total levy the resolution should show the general levy at the maximum
levy limitation. The Council made the following adjustments to offset the
reduction in personal requests:
1. Fire Department - Pagers (1st year) increase $5,250
2. Streets - Sealcoating - increase $5,000
3. Warning Sirens - $15,000
4. Balance to Contingency
9. Motion by Kelly, second by Uhl to adopt RESOLUTION NO. R71-87 adopting
the 1988 Operating budget. APIF, motion carried.
10. Motion by Kelly, second by Uhl to adopt RESOLUTION NO. R72-87 setting
the 1987/88 Tax levy as follows:
General
Debt
Fire Relief Levy
$761,363.00
232,049.00
2,842.00
$996,254.00
11. Motion by Sprute, second by Akin to adjourn at 9:30 P.M. APIF, motion
carried.
APPROVED
/D)IQ!'i)7
LT/kf