Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-01-81 . ~ • CITY OF T.AKFVILLE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING. October 1, 1981 The-meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.. by Acting Mayor Zaun at the Zakeville Senior Hgh,Schoole Roll call ,was taken. Present: Enright, Zaun, Sindt"and.. Nelson. Absent: none. Also .present: Patrick McGarvey, City-Administrator/Cler~C; Roger Knutson., City Attorney; Frank Krz, Jeff Roos and James Jahnson, Consulting Engineers .Diversified; James Robinette, Public [~*orks Director. At 7:OO p.m., Duane Zaun,`Acting Mayor, opened the public hearing on project 80-11. The city clerk attested to the legal notice. The city engineer presented a slide showing the estimated cost of the project compared. to the .final cost of the project. The city clerk explained that he project is to be assessed over 20 years at '9.920 interest. It was also explained that the property owners had 30 days to prepay their assessment without any. interest from the elate of the assessment roll, and that they alsa had 30 days to file an ao_peal,if they objected to the assessment, with the district court... The city administrator also explained that the City was a~roroosing to assess city sewer and water tuzit connection charges and asked that~the property owners .who had homes in the Oak. Hills Addition sign a petition on the_ assessrent of the unit charges. The reason for the petition was that the unit 'charges were discussed at the improvement hearing but`,were not included in the cost estimate. If the property .owners wish to have the City go ahem. and assess the unit charges , a petit%~on `~ou1d legal7.y allow the City to do so. Mayor.Zaun opened the meeting for c~u~stions and comments... A question was raised about how the City finances an improverient project. The city administrator. explained. that the City sells bonus and''xetires the payment. of principal and interest, on the bonds. by 'the. assessments which are made to the benefited properties. Steve Sizer asked about why the City did no`t go ahead and put this imprave- ment'n-with a sewer'liftstation years ago, and also why:all of the as~ahalt street improvement costs were not heirig paid by the c~evelo~er. The city administrator explained .that the ideal`.way to serve phase 2 of the Oak Hi11s Addition was to have it on a gravity sewer. system, but that the gravity line which would serve this area needed to be extended from the :west.. side of I-35 toward Oak Hi11.s, and there was'`little liklihood that -the undeveloped property was ,near development. It was also explained that "the development agreement entered into between the developer of Oak Hills :additions in 1973 and ~.he Ctty Qf_ Lakeville set a specific dollar amount for the :road improvements so that the`. interest on that money wouldrbelorig to the,developex. zt was e~olaned'that the City was giving .credit for the amount of money left on hand for the road imr~rovements plus the amount the 62 lots in phase 2 would receive on an equal, proportionate basis for all the lots divided into the.~Oney put un by the developer for the street improvements. The City.. would attempt to collect the difference from the :developer. .Gary West.asked'..about-street assessments and what the unit-connection ..:charges were: used for. It was ex?~lained the unit charges-are for the trunk improvements on the sewer an d. water .system which are not. assessed on a front foot basis. Art Sanford also asked about the unit charges. Councilman Nelson stated that he would`cradit:the'extra..cost on the project because of "thee higher price imr~rovement costs `in 1981 versus 1976. .81..471 Motion was made by Nelson, seconded. by Sindt toclose the public hearing and adopt the assessment roll as prex~ared except for the individuals who had presented written objections on or before the public improvement hearing, with those properties .having the public hearing left open until October 5, 1981,. at which time their assessments would be acted .upon by the City Council. Adopt"Resolution No. 81-73. -1- • • CITY OF LAKEVI,L.~LE SPECIAL.. COUNCIL MEETING October `1, 1981 Roll call_was taken on the emotion. Ayes, Enright, Sindt, Zaun & Nelson. At this time Mayor Zaun opened the public hearing on .project 81-4, The Meadows Second Addition improvements. The-city clerk attested to the legal notice. There was nobody present in the `audience concerning, this deve7Lo~?ment project. 81'.472 Motion was made'by Enright, seconded by Sindt to close the public hearing on project 81-4. .Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes,_Sindt, Zaun, Nelson & Enright. 81.473 Motion was made by Sindt, seconded by Nelson to adopt Resolution No. 81-74 approving the assessment roll on project 81-4, Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Zaun,'Nelson, Enright & Sindt. At 7`x45 p.~n. Mayor Zaun opened the public hearing'on the' assessment of project 81-10, wiadwood:Pondsstreet-improvement. The city clerk attested to the legal notice. There was nobody:. present wishing to speakor were concerned with the project. 81.474 r~totion was made by'Nelson, seconded by Sindt to close the public hearing on project 81-10, Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Nelson, Enright, Sindt & Zaun. 81.475 Motion was, made by Nelson, seconded. by Sindt to adopt Resolution No> 81=75 approving the assessment roll on project 81-10.` Roll call was taken on the. motion. Ayes, Enright, Sindt, Zaun & Nelson. Mayor Zaun opened the public hearing at 8:OD p.m. on the assessment of project 80-1 & 10. the city clerk .attested to the. legal notice of the hearing. Mr. Frank Kriz wresented a slide showing the estimated anal final project costs. The city clerk explained that. the broject is proposed to be assessed over a 20 .year period with an assessment. rate of 9.92% interest. It was also explained that individuals could pay'ther;assessments within 30 days' of .the adoption of the assessment roll with no interest. and that. they had 30 days to appeal their assessment to the district court. Mr. Peter Friedges asked about the appeal. process,.. and the city attorney explained it._ Mr. Leo .Gray: asked about the difference in the final costs. shown by the slide presented by Mr. Kriz versus those contained in a report written by Mr. Kriz. Mr. Kriz explained one had a;typographcal error:. _Mr. Gray :also asked about the."acquisition of temporary and permanent ease- ments and the costs. involved, which Mr. Kriz explained. Mr. Knutson asked about the ~Iocation of a-manhole in front of his .home, and Mr. Kriz explained it was within the right..-of-way, and when final design; plans were made, it'was determined it had to be at that ..location. It was also explained_that`the ,City :presently has an ordinance requiring properties to hook up to the city sewer and water when it was available within. two years; however, that the co~nci would most .likely adomt an .ordinance eliminating that requirement unless where is a health problem due to a faulty well or septic"system: -2 - • . CITY OF T.AKFVILLE SPECIAL COt3DTC3L MEETING October 1, -1.981 Mr. Lamont asked about what-the .city unit sewer and water charge was as compared to the front foot assessments. :The city clerk explained the purpose of°the city unit charges and what the money is used for on the trunk water and sewer systems. 81.476 Motion-was made by Nelson., .seconded by Sindt to close the public hearing on project 80-1 & 10 and adjourn the wublic hearingforthose.parcels of property owners 'who had written appeals on or .before the public hearing on October 1, adopting Resolution No. 81-76, with the public hearing adjourned to October 5, 1981. council meeting. under Other Business. Roll call was-taken on the motion. Ayes, Enright, Sindt & Nelson.' .Nays, none. Zaun abstained because he has property witY~n the project area. Mayor Zaun opened. the s~ublc hearing:on.project 80-5. The city. clerk attested to the legal notice. Mr. Zaun asked Felix Tinges, the developer of Viking Square, if he had any questions..concernang the assessments': Mr. Tinges was`presentand answered he had no questions. 81.477 Motion was made by Enright; seconded by Sndt to close the. public hearing on project 80-5. .Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Sindt, Zaun, Nelson & Enright. 81.478 Motion was made ,by Nelson, seconded by Sindt to adopt .Resolution No, 81-77 approving the assessment. roll on project 80-5. Roll call was taken on the: motion. Ayes,:'Zaun, Nelson, Enright & Sindt. Mayor Zaun opened the publ:chearin~ at 9:00-p.m, on the assessment for project 80-13, Forest Hills. The city clerk attested to the legal notice and indicated that the affidavit of mailing and publication ~,~as available in the file at'the city clerk°s .office. Thecity clerk. also explained that the property owners had 30 days to appear their .assessment :from the adoption of 'the assessment roll .rather. than the 20 days indicated in the notice.- The city c erk also explained that the citizens have 30 da?7s in which to pay off the assessment without any interest being>charged from`:<the?.adouton of the assessment roll. He .also explained that the project is proposed o be assessed over 20 years :at a rate of 9.9230 Frank Kriz presented a slide showing the final project costs and. the estimated costs. Mr. Robert Angus raised 'a legal challenge to the assess- ment hearings under Chapter 429`because of what he chained to be a defective' notice. The city attorney stated in his opinion it was still a legal hearing: Mr. Gossard'raised questions on the drainage along 173rd'Street, which the engineer answered. Mr. K.eaa'Smth asked about the restoration of the Forest Hulls area that. was included in the costs. as itemized. Mr. Kriz explained that the restoration was tenzed separately on this project because of the amount of driveways that had to be torn down or replaced in the Forest Hills addition, and that cost. along with all of the work in the boulevard. area including `:sod.. and/or seed constituted the rector- anon costs. Mr.,Tim McGuire asked about the front .foot calculations in his lot,:~hici~ ' he clamsi only 81 feet wide.' The engineer took the plat map and showed Mr. McGuire that his-lot was, in fact, 81 plus 20 feet for a total of lOl feet, Mr. Jim Johnson, city engineer, explained ho~1 the engineers had adjusted. .the front footage- on the Tats on the cul-de-sacs and .curved streets in a Dart of the Forest Hills. addition to make the benefit for the mt~rove-. ments,to'th~ir lot mare reflective of the size of their lot in total area compared to the average size of the 'lots in the .addition. -3- • • i CITY OF LAKEVILLE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETI~iVG October 1, 1983 Mr. Joe Jasper asked whl~ the.project was not assessed on a strictly unit assessment basis. Tne city clerk explained that the City has used strictly unit basis in some additions and strictly a front foot in others, but in this project it was 'felt the fairest method was acombinaton of the two. Mr. Louie Szabo asked what the unit connection charges were for, and the city clerk explained.Vahatthe money goes for on the. trunk water and sewer ystem. r~r. Helkenn asked about the restoration in front of his property; and the engineer explained that. the restoration was not yet .complete, but that it would be restored to his satisfaction. Mr. Robert-Elferng stated he thought the assessments were out of line and that he would sell his lots-for the assessment mice.. The. city attorney, Roger Ytnutson, explained that citizens who oum property in the,project'area have 30 days in which to file an appeal :with the district. court and 10 days thereafter to serve notice on the city clerk. Mr. Helkennstated that the road had been shifted over onto his property three feet. The city engineer explained that the road was shifted, but it was not on Per. Helkenn°s ~arivate property. Mr. Smith again asked .what the unit connection charges were far, and. the .city clerk ex~olained that the unit charges are. for the costs of the extra large pipe.:which constitutes the trunk system,°sewer lift stations, wells anc~.towers.. The city clerk also explained that the City was proposing to assess the- water .and sewer unit charges, ana that if the citizens wish to have the two unit charges .assessed which go to the .City, a petition ap?~rovng the assessment of them should be signed by the property owner and returned to the city clerk°s office within,. a'few days. 81.479 Motion was made by Sindt, seconded by Nelson. to close the r~ublic hearing by adopting Resolution Noo 81-78 approving the assessment .rolls set for those parcels where the City had received written objection on or before the,publc hearing on October 1,.1981, with those being adjourned to the October S, 1981 council meeting for. final action by the City Council. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Nelson, Enright, Sindt & Zaun. ~layor Zaun opened the public hearing at 10:00 p.m. on projects 80-6, 7 & 8. The city clerk attested to the legal notices. Mr. Byron ~~atsch?;.e was present and asked the City about bond Interest rite and .how capitalized interest was included in the assessment. PZr. Feller, Finance Director, explained what. the interest rate on the bonds which the City .sold to .finance the project was,, and how the. capitalized interest .was included in the amount being assessed. Councilman Nelson had to leave the meeting at. this time to report to his job. 81.480 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Sindt to close the public hearing.. on projects 80-6 7 & 8. Roll call. was. taken on the motion. Ayes, Enright, Sindt & Zaun. 81..481 Motion was made by Sindt, seconded by Enright to adopt Resolution No. 81-79 approving the assessment roll on projects 80..x,, 7 & 8. Roll call .was taken on the motion. Ayes, Sa.hdt, Zaun &-Enright: At this time Mayor Zaun opened the public hearings on `the assessments for the McNearney addition, Krause-Power Center property, Foxborough add'itiony and the Valley Park 8th Addition; phase three projects which all made improvements to .developer owned property. The city clerk .attested to the legal notices-for the hearings. There was no one present representing the''developers of any of these projects wishing to speak. -4- • • CITY OF LAKEVILLE SPECIAL COTJ~tCIL MEETING October 1, 1981 81.482 ..Motion was made by Sndt, seconded by Enright to close the bublic hearings on the four-above projects and to adopt P~esolution No. 81-8® a?~proving the assessments. on each of .the dour ~arojects. Roll call was taken on the .motion. Ayes,l,Zaun, Enright &,Sindt. 81.483 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Sjindt to adjourn the special council meeting. Roll. call was taken on the motion.. Ayes,I~IEnrght, Sindt & Zaun. Time"• 10.20: p.m, I Resoec;tfully submitted,. is ~I ~ , Patric McGarvey, City`Cler Duane Zaun, Act' Mayor i I i i i i i it -5- i SS ~S S rJ'1 L~R/7 ~f1/P /j?G ~C T % ~ d" _ /Z l L.. E--ll v GJ f L ~ ,f~- ~ ~ ~~j ~1/ ~~-cue. _ Z _ /a la, _ 1? ~ ~ _ ~ . _ _ _ u4 ~ - - - 7d 3 0 _ _ _ . _ - - 1_~ ~ ~ v _ _ - - - _ _ _ - - _ a - _ _ _ _ ~ zZ - ~ _ _ _ . _ _ 1 Q.v_1-~ - ~ - ~ - _ _ - _ . _ . 9~i~~oa ~,w. . - ~=~-e~ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ~ dZ- - - G_J~ _ ~ , _ ~'Sl~c3 0 ~~3~ _ _ ~ _ --cti. ~ (0 5 3 S f' Div ~l f< ~ / _ _ n7 G / _ _ - - ~ ~ j a.''~- ~ ~ - _ - _ r ~t - _ _ _ _ - _ _ 3 _ - - ~j 1 ~ f ~?-,~~J - - - _ - - f , ~ 1,~~~~ _ - • ~SSFSsm.E..i r j'E~E,9~ - QC'`T ~ ~3 _ in L _ f~AA_.4F 'S_-__ c i,