Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-29-83 r ~ ~ • CITY OF LAKEVILLE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 29, 1983 The special council meeting was called to order by Mayor Zaun at 7:00 p.m. at the Lakeville High School. Roll call was taken. Present: Council members Harvey, Sindt, Enright, Nelson and Mayor Zaun. Also present: Roger Knutson, City Attorney; Frank Kriz and Keith Nelson from Consulting Engineers Diversified; James Robinette, Community Development Director; Patrick McGarvey, City Administrator/Clerk. The city clerk attested to the legal notice for the assessment of project 82-3, 175th Street utility and street improvements near Orchard Lake. Mr. Nelson showed a slide indicating that the final project cost came in at $282,999.36, compared to his estimate of $313,000. He stated that the unit price for each assessment came to $9,899.50, compared to his previous estimate of $12,825. The city clerk explained that the assessments would be for a 20 year spread with an interest rate of 11.45% on the unpaid principal. The interest due in 1984 would be for a 15 month period beginning October 1, 1983 and running through 1984. The city attorney explained how a property owner can file an appeal on the assessment. At this time Mr. Leonard Dolan at 12196 175th Street asked why the city charged 11.45% interest when the bonds were sold for a lesser rate. The city clerk explained that the difference is authorized by state statute and that the city uses that to cover administration costs over the life of the assessment and to cover contingencies for potential delin- quencies. 83.429 Motion was made by Harvey, seconded by Sindt to close the public hearing on project 82-3. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Harvey, Sindt, Zaun, Enright, Nelson. Time: 7:17 p.m. 83.430 Motion was made by Nelson, seconded by Harvey to adopt Resolution No. 83-100 adopting the assessment roll on project 82-3. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Sindt, Zaun, Enright, Nelson, Harvey. The council took a brief recess, and at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Zaun opened the public hearing on the assessment of project 83-4, Dakota Plaza addition improvements. ti ~ • • CITY OF LAKEVILLE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING September 29, 1983 The city clerk attested to the legal notice. The project was put in by the city for a new development. There was nobody present wishing to hear the presentation by the engineer or to speak on the project. 83.431 Motion was made by Harvey, seconded by Sindt to close the public hearing. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Zaun, Enright, Nelson, Harvey, Sindt. Time: 7:33 p.m. 83.432 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Nelson to adopt Resolution No. 83-101 approving the assessment roll on project 83-4. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Enright, Nelson, Harvey, Sindt, Zaun. The city council took a brief recess, and at 8:00 p.m. Mayor Zaun opened the public hearing on the assessment of project 82-1, the improvement to 185th Street and Ipava Avenue for street improvements. The city clerk attested to the legal notice for the public hearing. The city engineer presented a slide showing the final project cost at $588,075.75. He further explained that the assessments being composed were based on a front foot and an area unit assessment method for the project and potentially could provide the city approximately $313,754 under the assessment policy set by the council. At this time the city administrator read from the minutes of the May 3, 1982 council meeting a statement of Mayor Jensen at that time outlining the policy on the deferment of assessments on this project. The city attorney explained to the citizens present how they could appeal their assessment after this special council meeting. At this time Mayor Zaun opened the meeting up for questions and comments from the audience. Marilyn Quist asked about dividing property into 10 acre lots in the future. She was advised that without city sewer, a 10 acre lot is the minimum size acceptable to the city, and that it can be approved. Mr. Tom Quam stated that he had two 10 acre parcels with no houses on either of them, but that he had received a deferment on one lot. and no deferment on the other. The city clerk explained that it was an error in the computer printout, and .that both lots would be deferred since neither has a house on it at this time under the policy set by the council. 2 • • • CITY OF LAKEVILLE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING September 29, 1983 Mr. Moore questioned why the assessments were being deferred on a 10 acre lot without a house but not deferred on a 10 acre lot with a house. He stated that it was his understanding at the improvement hearing that if the property owner had 10 acres or more, with or without a house, that the assessment would be deferred. The administrator once again read from the council minutes of the May 3, 1982 council meeting concerning deferment on 10 acre parcels. Mayor Zaun indicated that he agreed there was confusion as to whether the deferments applied to 10 acre parcels, even with a house. Mr. Steve Grohoski asked if he could pay a $150 area unit assessment on a 20 acre parcel rather than have it deferred. The city attorney advised that the city council has the authority to set the policy on whether or not the assessment can be deferred. The city council members discussed the policy on whether to include 10 acre lots with houses for deferment, as well as those without houses- on this project. The consensus of the council members was that there was some confusion between the press reports at the previous public improve- ment hearings and what was actually stated at the meetings. Councilman Nelson abstained from voting on a decision concerning the unit charge, because his property is involved in the project area for assessment. Mr. Grohoski indicated that parcel No. 22-018-00-010-29 is not listed or identified under the correct ownership at this time, according to him. The city administrator advised the council in reply to the area assess- ment on the street that for larger undeveloped parcels of property, the council may want to consider deferring the assessment so that when the property is actually developed, an exact count of lots can be thoroughly obtained and a deferred assessment then calculated with an exact lot count. He also suggested to the council that if a property owner wished to pay on a larger parcel of property before it is subdivided, the city might investigate applying an average density per acre under the existing zoning on the property to determine the number of unit assess- ments. 83.433 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Sindt to close the public hearing. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Nelson, Harvey, Sindt, Zaun, Enright. 83.434 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Harvey to amend the assessment roll to defer two parcels of assessments with 10 acres and homes existing on them because of the confusion over whether 10 acre parcels with homes were also to be deferred. 3 • • CITY OF LAKEVILLE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING September 29, 1983 Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Harvey, Sindt, Zaun, Enright, Nelson. 83.435 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Harvey to clarify policy concerning the unit charge and that the policy is to be that the rate is $150 per lot or dwelling unit now and throughout the life of the assessment period for the property involved in this project area. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Sind t, Zaun, Enright, Harvey. Nelson, abstained. 83.436 Motion was made by Sindt, seconded by Harvey to adopt Resolution No. 83-102 adopting the assessment roll as amended and tabling council action on the assessment on the parcel of property owned by Mr. Grohoski identified as parcel No. 22-01800-013-26 until the October 17th council meeting. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Zaun, Enright, Nelson, Harvey, Sindt. At this time the city council took up consideration of the proposed 1984 budget and reviewed a report from the park & recreation director concerning the request to purchase grass cutting equipment in 1984. The city administrator also advised the council that Councilperson Enright had requested the council include a $10,000 appropriation toward the city's effort in obtaining Star City designation from the state of Minnesota for Lakeville in 1984. 83.437 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Sindt to direct the staff to change the proposed budget for 1984 to include $10,000 for the Star City program and to put in any additional revenue that is anticipated into a contingency fund. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Enright, Nelson, Zaun, Sindt, Harvey. 83.438 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Nelson to keep the funds in the 1984 budget for the purchase of a grounds master mower for the park maintenance department. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Nelson, Zaun, Enright. Nays, Sindt & Harvey. 83.439 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Sindt to adjourn the council meeting. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Nelson, Zaun, Enright, Sindt, Harvey. Time: 10:07 p.m. 4 • • • CITY OF LAKEVILLE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING September 29, 1983 Respectfully sub fitted, f atrick E. McG rve , City Cler Du ne Zaun, M r 5 • ! • CITY OF LAKEVILLE AGENDA SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING September 29, 1983 7:00 P.M. Lakeville High School 1. Roll call. 7:00 2. Public hearing on the assessment of project 82-3, 175th Street utility and street improvements. a. Attest to the legal notice. b. City Engineer to present the project costs and assessments. c. Questions and comments. d. Motion to close the public hearing. e. Resolution on the adoption of the assessment roll. 7:30 3. Public hering on the assessment of project 83-4, Dakota Plaza Addition improvements. a. Attest to the legal notice. b. City Engineer to present the project costs and assessments. c. Questions and comments. d. Motion to close the public hearing. e. Resolution on the adoption of the assessment roll. 8:00 4. Public hearing on the assessment of project 82-1, 185th Street and Ipava Avenue street improvement. a. Attest to the legal notice. b. City Engineer to present the project costs and assessments. c. Questions and comments. d. Motion to close the public hearing. e. Resolution on the adoption of the assessment roll. 5. Any other business. 6. Adjourn.