Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.19.87 Council Minutes MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR OCTOBER 19, 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. Motion by Kelly, second by Uhl to approve the agenda with the removal of all items from the consent agenda for general discussion. APIF, motion carried. 3. It was the consensus of the Council to approve the minutes of the October 5, 1987 regular meeting and the October et, ,1~7 special meeting. 4. Motion by Kelly, second by Akin to set a public hearing for November 2, 1987 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the reassessment of Terra 2nd Addition. (Projects 87-5 thru 87-8) APIF, motion carried. 5. The Council next considered a staff recommendation to amend the Whispering River Development plan as follows: A. Move the perimeter sidewalk from private property to the public boulevard and increase the width from 3' to 4'. B. Eliminate the pond. C. Extend the deadline from November 1, 1987 to June 1, 1988. Administrator Thompson stated that approximately 3 utility pedestals would need to be moved at approximately $200 each. Mr. Thompson added that a 3 way split of the cost had been discussed but had no recommendation. Mayor Akin supported the 4' sidewalk, while Council member Sprute supported a 42" sidewalk. Council member Mayer stated that it should remain a 3' sidewalk. All Council members concurred that the sidewalks should be moved. The pros and cons of the width were discussed at length. The council next discussed the elimination of the pond at length. Council member Sprute raised several questions related to the DNR's involvement with the pond, input at public hearings, costs associated with the pond, potential problems with eliminating the pond and lack of storm sewers on the site. Administrator Thompson indicated that the request had come from the homeowners association and not the developer. Council member Sprute questioned if the City might encounter legal problems if the developer's agreement were amended unilaterally by the City. Attorney Grannis stated that it would be best if the City received written concurrence by all property owners and the developer. It was the consensus of the Council that because of questions raised regarding the pond, that any decision on it be tabled and sent back to staff for further review. Motion by Kelly, second by Uhl to approve the Whispering River developers agreement as follows: A. Move the sidewalk to the boulevard, approximately 7' from the curb. B. Increase the width to 42" with the City paying for the additional 6". C. Split the cost of moving the pedestals between the City, Developer and Homeowners Association. D. Extend the deadline from November 1, 1987 to June 1, 1988. Said amendment contingent upon agreement by the developer and written concurrence by all property owners within the plat. APIF, motion carried. 6. General Services Superintendent Kaldunski informed the Council that because a storm sewer along Eaves Way had not been extended to the rear property line, the outlet had become plugged. Mr. Kaldunski stated that in order to correct the problem the line should be extended at a cost of approximately $4,100. Discussion followed regarding the financing of the project. Motion by Akin, second by Kelly to proceed with the project as proposed, with the financing to come from the funds left in the Fire Hall erosion control project. APIF, motion carried. 7. The Council commended Mr. Kaldunski and the General Services Department for the excellent work on the Fire Hall Erosion Project. 8. It was the consensus of the Council that the Attorney summarize the individual Administrator's evaluations and mail the summary to the Council members. The matter will not be placed on the agenda unless requested by a Council member. 9. The Council next considered the following capital outlay requests by General Services: a. Tamper b. Sickle Bar Mower c. Concrete Saw $1,750.00 982.00 820.00 Mr. Kaldunski recommended the items be funded as follows: 1. General Services - Capital Outlay - $2,200 2. Fire Hall Erosion Project - $1,352 Mayor Akin stated that because most of the Fire Hall erosion funds had been dedicated by previous actions, the balance come from contingency. Motion by Akin, second by Mayer to approve the aforementioned capital outlay requests, to be funded from the General Services Capital Outlay, remaining funds in the Fire Hall erosion project and the balance from contingency. APIF, motion carried. 10. The Council next considered a school and conference request by General Services. Council member Sprute asked if a City truck had to be used for transportation. Mr. Kaldunski clarified that the request should have stated "City vehicle". Motion by Sprute, second by Kelly to approve the schools and conferences request as submitted. APIF, motion carried. 23H ,', \ ~. 11. Council member Sprute noted that on the list of bills, one payment was for $0. Administrator Thompson stated that it was probably a keying error and would be pulled. Council member Sprute asked why the City had two landfill bills. Mr. Thompson stated that Dakhue was closed on Mondays and Tuesdays. Motion by Sprute, second by Kelly to approve the bills as submitted. APIF, motion carried. 12. Motion by Sprute. second by Akin to adjourn at 9:00 P.M. APIF, motion carried. Respectfully submitted. . Thompson Administrator Approved II 1~/!7 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. J 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. ~ MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 19, 1987 ADDENDUM Council member Sprute asked that the following questions be addressed before a decision is made on the Whispering River ponds. What was the DNR's involvement with the pond? Is input during public hearings going to be considered? Is citizens' safety taken into consideration? Is potential contamination of the floodway and river considered? How about the developer's cost to construct the pond? What was the purpose of the pond? What was the City Engineer's responsibility in designing the pond? What about potential lawsuits by the developer? What about potential lawsuits by on-site property owners? What about potential lawsuits by off-site property owners? Will the plat have to be changed? Has the fact that this has been a dry year been taken into consideration? (Will wet years have a greater impact?) Who pays for the cost of filling in the pond? What about the November 1, 1987 deadline set by the Council? Are there any problems between the developer and landowners? Who pays for the cost of changing the plat? How did the public hearings affect the final configuration of the plat? (e.g. pond, drainage, etc.) Will the DNR take action against the City if the pond is filled in? Has the lack of storm sewer on-site been taken into consideration? Is the request made by the developer or homeowners? 1