HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.03.86 Council Minutes
295
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR
NOVEMBER 3, 1986
1. Mayor Akin called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Members Present: Akin, Kelly, Mayer, Orr, Sprute.
Members Absent: None.
Also Present: Administrator Thompson, Attorney Grannis.
2. Motion by Sprute, second by Orr to approve the agenda with the following
changes:
1. Consider a request for manhole rehabilitation.
2. Discuss Airlake Airport study.
3. Discuss certificate of need for sludge/ash sites.
4. Discuss intersection of Oak and Division Streets.
APIF, motion carried.
3. Motion by Sprute, second by Orr to approve the minutes of the October 20,
1986 regular session with the correction that Councilman Sprute, rather than
Councilman Orr voted against the motion in Paragraph 11. APIF, motion carried.
4. Motion by Sprute, second by Mayer to approve the consent agenda as follows:
1. Approve a capital outlay request - Fire Department - Floor Jacks - $1,178.59.
2. Approve request for Payment #1 - Project 86-12.
3. Approve request for Payment #1 - Project 82-5.
4. Approve request for Payment #1 - 86-4 thru 86-8.
5. Appoint election judge replacements.
6. Approve capital outlay request - Fire Department - Repaint Pickup -$976.00.
7. Approve capital outlay request and budget adjustment - Fire Department -
Hurst Tool Dump Valve - $375.00.
8. Approve capital outlay request - Police Department - Radar - $1,175.00.
9. Approve request to attend seminar - Police Department.
10. Approve payment of the bills as submitted.
APIF, motion carried.
5. Mayor Akin called a special meeting of the City Council for November 5, 1986
at 5:00 P.M. to accept the election results.
6. Economic Development Director Robert Williamson presented a proposed business
retention program sponsored by the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic
Development. Mr. Williamson stated that the Economic Development Commission has
endorsed the program and recommends that the Council enter into an agreement with
MnDEED to carry out the program. Mayor Akin stated that many of the MnDEED programs
have been used for political purposes and objected to its use. Motion by Mayer,
second by Orr to adopt Resolution No. R98-86 entering into an agreement with
MnDEED for a business retention program. Voting for: Mayer, Orr, Kelly, Sprute.
Voting against: Akin. Motion carried.
7. Mayor Akin opened a public hearing at 7:15 P.M. to consider the proposed
assessment roll for Project 86-12 (1986 Street Improvements). Administrator
Thompson gave a brief summary of the costs and stated that the assessments were
calculated on a per lot basis. Letters of appeal from Thomas Angell, Jean Jensen,
Gale Sprute, William Weierke, Dan Johnson, James Hennan, William Myers and Douglas
Pederson were entered into the minutes. The following testimony was given:
Tom Angell - I am opposed to the per lot method of assessment because it is unfair
and inequitable. Also, what do the City costs represent?
296
Larry Thompson - It is for manhole and catch basin replacement.
Tom Angell - Why did you replace the driveways?
Glenn Cook - Because they were in poor condition, would not meet the grade
properly, or would not drain.
Tom Angell - Why did you lower the grade on Oak Street?
Glenn Cook - To make a more consistent grade.
Tom Angell - The Administrator told me that he was concerned that the road was
lowered below existing grade.
Larry Thompson - I indicated that I was concerned because the original plans
indicated that the street was to be replaced at approximately
the same grade, but that I would hav~ to check with the engineer. After Mr. Cook
told me it was only lowered approximately 4" I was not concerned.
Tom Angell - Why did you replace driveways all the way back to the sidewalk.
8. Mayor Akin opened a public hearing at 7:30 P.M.
assessments for Project 82-5 (T.H. 50 Water Main).
until later in the meeting.
to consider the proposed
The hearing was continued
9. Glenn Cook - Because they were either in poor condition or would not meet the
street grade.
Tom Kaldunski - Individuals also indicated they wanted to replace the driveway
to the sidewalk.
Tom Angell - Why are driveways assessed 100%?
Pat Akin - It is a direct benefit.
Tom Angell - Who owns the 20' strip in front of my house over which the driveway
is placed?
Pat Akin - The City does, but the streets are also owned by the City and they
are assessed.
Tom Angell - How are assessments to be paid?
Larry Thompson - They are placed on your property taxes to be paid over 10 years
in equal principal payments plus interest.
Tom Angell - In summary, the City should assess by front foot and offer some
relief from driveway improvements.
Della Manke - The assessments should be on a per lot basis.
property owner pay 230% more than the property
could you explain the deferment procedure?
David Grannis - Application forms can be obtained from the Council. Since the
City has no policy at this time, the Council can consider each
application on an individual basis.
Tom Jensen - Assessments should be based on a front footage basis.
Why should one
next door? Also,
James Hennen - I don't feel I should have to pay for sod or trees. My driveway
was good, but was one that the engineers determined was flat.
We discussed asphalt vs. concrete but no price was given. If I would have known
the price of concrete, I would have gone with asphalt. Also, the sod was
installed poorly.
299
Pat Akin - State law dictates that we have to take the low bid, including the
subcontractors. If workmanship was poor, it will be corrected.
Larry Thompson - The trees were not part of the project. They were installed
with Ad Valorem funds.
Bill Weierke
My driveway was installed only 1" thick.
Bill Myers - My driveway was also installed only 1" thick.
Glenn Cook - They will be inspected and corrected if necessary.
Bill Myers - Where was the inspector when the driveways and sod were being installed?
Pat Akin - Oak Street was not the only project going on at the time. If we
would have an inspector on the site at all times, the project costs
would have been much greater.
Bill Myers - I also object to the per lot basis of assessment.
City Attorney David Grannis gave a brief summary of the appeal process.
Amy Deegan - The radius on the alley and my sidewalk were not installed.
Tom Kaldunski - The sidewalK is on our punch list to have completed.
Larry Thompson - The radius was not installed because the alley would not
drain properly. The work will be completed in the Spring.
Jim Ertl - Is the Council considering corner lot credits?
Pat Akin - The Council rejected corner lot credits during its last regular meeting.
Ruth Kuchera - I am in favor of a per lot assessment. Also, I had some damage
to my yard which was not repaired.
Tim Sloss - The sod was not installed properly.
Jim Ertl - I am in favor of a per lot assessment.
Mayor Akin closed the public hearing.
10. Councilmember Orr stated that he supported the per lot method because all
owners were already receiving a 75% credit from ad valorem taxes. This was done
as a general improvement with owners receiving equal benefits. New subdivisions
are assessed on a per lot basis. Also, even though driveways were installed on
public property, they serve individual properties. Councilmember Mayer stated
that he supported the per front footage method because it was more equitable.
Councilmember Mayer added that corner lot assessments could be reduced by giving
credits with ad valorem funds. Councilmember Sprute stated that the front footage
method would be more equitable and that he felt it would be easier to defend in
the event of an appeal. Attorney Grannis stated that because of the 75% credit,
either method would be equally defensible. Councilman Sprute stated that because
street grades had been changed and some owners had not been notified, that the
City should give relief on driveways. Councilmember Sprute added that he was in
favor of corner lot credits. Councilmember Kelly stated that she was in favor
of the front footage method. Mayor Akin stated that there is no right or wrong
method of assessment. Motion by Orr second by Akin to adopt Resolution No. R99-86
adopting the assessment roll for project 86-12 based on a per lot method.
Voting for: Orr, Akin. Voting against: Kelly, Mayer, Sprute. Motion failed.
11. Motion by Mayer, second by Kelly to adopt Resolution No. R99-86 adopting the
assessment roll for project 86-12 based on a per front footage method with credits
given as follows: Sophie Manke - $500, 1st National Bank - $415, James Ertl - $264,
Ruth Kuchera - $264. APIF, motion carried.
300
12. Mayor Akin reconvened. the public hearing to consider the assessment roll
for project 82-5 (T.H.#50 - Water Main). Administrator Thompson explained the
costs associated with the project and method of assessment. Mayor Akin asked
if Stella Hammer's assessments could be deferred. Attorney Grannis stated that
the Council could consider it if she applied. Mayor Akin closed the public
hearing.
13. Motion by Orr, second by Kelly to adopt Resolution No. R100-86 adopting the
assessment roll for project 82-5 as proposed. APIF, motion carried.
14. Motion by Sprute, second by Mayer to set a public hearing for November 17,
1986 at 7:15 P.M. to consider the 1986 Liquor Licenses. APIF, motion carried.
15. Administrator Thompson presented a proposed developers agreement for the
privately funded street improvement on 203rd Street Court and 204th Street.
General Services Superintendent Tom Kaldunski explained the project and indicated
that it was feasible. Motion by Akin, second by Mayer to adopt Resolution No.RlOl-86
approving the aforementioned developers agreement. APIF, motion carried.
16. Motion by Sprute, second by Kelly to approve the 1986 Budget Adjustments
as presented. APIF, motion carried.
17. Finance Director Henneke presented a request by Gary Kummer to reduce his
sewer bill retroactively when the building was occupied by Pete Michaels. Motion
by Akin, second by Orr to deny the request. APIF, motion carried.
18. It was the consensus of the Council not to initiate termination proceedings
relating to Thelma Pool's position on the HRA because of attendance, but that
she would not be reconsidered for reappointment.
19. Motion by Kelly, second by Orr to approve a capital outlay request of
$2000 for a sewer pump. APIF, motion carried.
20. Motion by Sprute, second by Mayer to approve the manhole rehab request.
APIF, motion carried.
21. It was the consensus of the Council that the Mayor and Administrator meet
with James Reisinger to discuss the street repair at Oak and Division.
22. The Council directed the Mayor and Administrator to attend the Met Council
meeting on December 3, 1986 to discuss the Sludge/Ash certificate of need. The
Administrator was directed to draft a proposed resolution for the next meeting.
23. Mayor Akin gave a brief update on the proposed Airlake Airport Study. It
was the consensus of the Council that a response be drafted relating to the
proposed study committee.
24. Motion by Akin, second by Sprute to adjourn at 10:15 P.M.
APIF, motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved
\ \ )n] 'b~