Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-26-86 H CITY OF LAKEVILLE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1986 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. at Orchard Lake Elementary School gymnasium by Mayor Zaun. Roll call was taken. Present: Council members Sindt, Enright, `Harvey, Nelson and Mayor Zaun. Also present: Keith Nelson and Don Grover from Donohue and Associates engineering firm; Cecelia Ray from the city attorney's office; James Robinette, Community Development Director; Patrick McGarvey, City Administrator/Clerk. Mayor Zaun explained the procedure the council uses in conducting public hearings on proposed improvement projects and opened the public hearing on project 86-5 at 7:05 p.m. The city clerk attested to the proper legal notice for the hearing. Keith Nelson presented slides showing the scope of the project proposed and explained that it would entail putting in a 24 foot wide asphalt street with two and one-half inch thick asphalt over the existing gravel roads in the proposed project. Prior to placing the asphalt mat on the roads, the city public works department would place additional gravel and level gravel coarse prior to the contractor paving the roads. The work by the city departments would not be charged to the project. Mr. Nelson showed a slide indicating that segment one of the project had an estimated cost of $78,400 and segment two had $84,200 for a total estimated project cost of $162,600. Mr. Nelson indicated that the average lot width throughout the project is 390 front feet. He indicated that his firm had recommended to the council that the project be assessed on a unit basis. One unit would be assessed $3,206 and if the parcel of property involved a corner lot, it would receive a side yard assessment of one-half unit in addition to the full front unit. One-half unit would be $1,604 estimated cost. Mr. Nelson indicated that lots with 100 feet or less of footage would receive a fraction of a unit of assessment, depending upon their width. The city administrator explained that the project could be assessed over 20 years and estimated that the interest rate would be ten percent on the unpaid principal. The first year's assessment would include three additional months from October 1, 1986, through 1987. The property owners could pay off their assessments at any time to reduce the amount of interest paid over the life of the project by prepaying. At this time, Mayor Zaun opened the public hearing for questions and comments from those in the audience. • • • CITY OF LAKEVILLE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1986 Eugene Thompson, owner of parcel ~f41, advised the engineer that the curve of 162nd Street near his property is not as sharp as shown on the city maps. Jim Bragg of 16465 Judicial Road asked what the project would cost if assessed on a lineal front foot basis, and the engineer indicated approximately $15.39 per foot. He also asked what the weight restrictions would be on the road, and it was indicated that there would probably not need to be any unless there got to be extreme heavy truck usage in the spring, in which case a temporary load limit would be placed on the roads to protect them from damage during the spring season by heavy equipment. Roger Schiff ler, whose property is next to the Burnsville boundary, indicated that the City of Burnsville had paved over the boundary line and had, therefore, paved a portion of the street in front of his property. The city attorney indicated that if the city improvement project would not benefit his property, he could not be assessed for it. LeRoy Reinhart, who lives in Apple Valley but owns property in the project area, proposed that the project be assessed on an equal unit basis and eliminate the side yard one-half unit assessments. Ann Miller, who owns parcel 437, stated she was in opposition to a side yard one-half unit assessment. Mr. Don Berle, who owns lot ~1f30, asked why the city was not paying for the project. The city administrator explained that the city does not have the funds to pay for all street installations, and if the city were to have to pay for the project, there wouldn't be very many asphalt roads anywhere in the city of Lakeville if no assessing for the improvements was done. Most all streets built in the city of Lakeville in the past years have been assessed by the city or paid for by developers. The city administrator then advised the council that a quick calculation of a number of side unit parcels involved in the project if eliminated in the amount of their total assessments were divided by the number of front units, the increase in the unit parcel charge would be approximately $328, bringing the total unit charge to $3,534. JoAnn Lambert asked what would happen after sewer and water is put in the area or the streets break up, if the citizens would have to pay for another street assessment. Mr. Nelson indicated that because the asphalt is being placed at only a 24 foot width, he felt sewer and water laterals would be placed on each side of the road, one in each ditch area, without tearing out the entire road if and when sewer and water goes in the area. 2 r+ • • CITY OF LAKEVILLE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1986 Robert Steria, who owns lot 438, said he favors the project but without the side unit assessment. A gentleman who owns parcel ~~21 indicated he did not favor the project. Sue Leech at 12295 162nd Street stated she favors both segments of the project and indicated she felt the roads are unsafe in their present condition. Janet Lekson indicated that once the roads were paved, the speed of the traffic who drives on them would increase, and that she did not favor the road improvement project. Elmer Fritz asked how many parcels of property he owns in the project area, and it was indicated he has one unit according to city records. Glen Klotz asked why the city should not put in sewer and water at this time and then allow division of some of the larger lots into smaller lots. Mr. Burt Dahlberg indicated that he favors the project but that he also favors having the side unit assessments blended in with the full unit assessments. Mr. Dick Raine stated he favors the project with equalized assessments. Ms. Brigette Pascutoi stated she favors the project with equalized assessments. Mark DeYoung stated he opposed the project. Dan Anderson stated a concern for speed in the area with the improved roads. Bill Andring stated he opposed the project. Gary Leech indicated he favors the project and that blacktop is saf er than gravel roads in his opinion. Bill Stanton suggested that possibly speed bumps could be put in; however, the staff indicated that is not done on public streets. Elmer Hoff beck indicated he felt more police in the area would be helpf ul . Bruce Forland indicated he opposed the project. Anne Miller asked what effect the improvement would have on property value and taxes. The city administrator indicated that the project to be assessed to the property has to be deemed to improve the property's value by at least the amount of the assessment. This would probably be 3 • • • CITY OF LAKEVILLE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1986 reflected in time and the property value set by the county assessor for the assessed market value, which would increase the assessed value, thereby eventually causing an increase in the property tax on the parcel of property. At this time, Mayor Zaun asked the council members for their comments or questions. Councilman Harvey stated he did not have questions but that he felt from the comments stated at the council meeting that there was a slight majority in attendance in favor of the project with the assessment made on an overall unit basis for this project. Councilmember Enright stated she felt from the comments received that a slight majority of those in attendance favored the project going in, and she could go along with the single unit assessments for this project. Councilmember Sindt stated she also felt the majority favored the project provided it was assessed on the single unit basis for this project. Councilman Nelson stated he also favors the project and felt blacktop roads are a good investment for property owners, and that he could support a change in the assessment policy for this project to assess on a one unit basis. Mayor Zaun indicated he felt the project assessments don't always result in immediate property value increases and, thereby, property tax in- creases, and he also felt the change in policy to a one unit assessment should be further checked out, and that he favored the project. 86.247 Motion was made by Harvey, seconded by Nelson to close the public hearing. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Zaun, Sindt, Enright, Harvey, Nelson. The city administrator advised the council that if the council wished to change the assessment policy presented in the feasibility report from Donohue and Associates, that it should amend a policy to eliminate the one-half unit assessment if the council is going to order the project, because once the project is ordered, the assessments are pending. 86.248 Motion was made by Harvey, seconded by Sindt to adopt Resolution No. 86-59 ordering project No. 86-5 and authorizing Donohue and Associates to prepare plans and specifications and amending the engineering feasibility report to eliminate the side yard one-half unit assessments and increase the pending assessment for the front yard full unit from $3,206 to $3,524 estimated cost. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Zaun, Sindt, Enright, Harvey, Nelson. 4 _ • • • CITY OF LAKEVILLE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1986 At this time, Mayor Zaun opened the public hearing on the proposed improvement of 165th Street east of Kenrick Avenue, including storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water, curb and gutter, asphalt streets and walkways, and extending sanitary sewer and watermain from the Oak Shores area into the Jackson First Addition and to Rolling Oaks South additions, project 86-3. The city clerk attested to the proper legal notice for the hearing. Keith Nelson presented slides showing the scope of the project, location and project cost for each component. Mr. Nelson indicated that the city water and sewer unit connection charges are in addition to the assessment rates shown in the feasibility report. He also indicated that 165th Street is proposed to be constructed with a 44 foot wide surface and that it can fit in the existing 66 foot wide right-of -way. A slide was presented giving an estimated assessment for the various improvements on a lot that would have 250 feet of width to cover one acre of size. The estimated total assessment on a lot was $24,524.46 plus sewer and water connection charges for the metro and city governments. The city clerk explained that the project would be assessed over 20 years with interest charged on the unpaid principal each year, with the first year being the time period of 15 months from October 1, 1987 through 1988. At this time, Mayor Zaun opened the hearing for questions and comments from those in the audience. Mr. Ed Vivant, who owns a parcel of property identified as parcel ~~13, asked what his property was proposed to be assessed for as a part of this project, and the engineer indicated that at this time only a storm drainage assessment would be involved for his property. Mr. Duane Dietrich, developer of the Rolling Oaks Addition plats, indicated to the council that for his development to keep moving ahead, he needed sewer extended to the 165th Street area as soon as possible and indicated that he is in full support of the project and asked if by prepaying some of their costs they could reduce their share of the 10 percent capitalized interested included in the estimated project cost. It was indicated that if they prepaid, they could probably receive some savings on capitalized interest. Mr. Mark Perano from Frontiers Homes indicated to the council that their firm would be building and selling 300 houses in the Rolling Oaks Additions between now and the end of 1987 provided the city improvements are made available to the 165th street area, and the sooner the better. He also indicated he would like to see 165th Street extended further east to the east property line of the Rolling Oaks Addition so that the street is improved to the rear of the lots in the northeast corner of the plat. 5 • . • CITY OF LAKEVILLE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING NNE 26, 1986 At this time, Mayor Zaun asked the council members for any comments or questions. The council members indicated they felt the project was feasible and were in favor of it, and that the E.A.W. associated with the project must include an analysis of any effects the project might have on Crystal Lake. 86.249 Motion was made by Harvey, seconded by Sindt to close the public hearing. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Sindt, Enright, Harvey, Nelson Zaun. 86.250 Motion was made by Sindt, seconded by Harvey to receive and approve the addendum to the preliminary report for project 86-3 dated June 26, 1986. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Enright, Harvey, Nelson, Zaun, Sindt. 86.251 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Harvey to authorize Donohue and Associates to prepare an environmental assessment worksheet on project 86-3 and directed them to pay close attention to the analysis of any effect the project may have on Crystal Lake. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Harvey, Nelson, Zaun, Sindt, Enright. 86.252 Motion was made by Harvey, seconded by Sindt to amend the preliminary report and authorize the extension of 165th Street further to the east boundary line of the Rolling Oaks Addition as requested. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Nelson, Zaun, Sindt, Enright, Harvey. 86.253 Motion was made by Sindt, seconded by Nelson to adopt Resolution No. 86-60 ordering phase one and two of project 86-3 and authorizing Donohue and Associates to prepare engineering plans and specifications. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Zaun, Sindt, Enright, Harvey, Nelson. 86.254 Motion was made by Enright, seconded by Sindt to adopt Resolution No. 86-61 authorizing condemnation on the property for easements necessary to construct project 86-3. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Sindt, Enright, Harvey, Nelson, Zaun. 6 ' _ • • • CITY OF LAKEVILLE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1986 At this time, the city administrator presented a purchase agreement for the sale of lot 6, block 2, Dakota Heights 8th Addition, which the city had been given by the developer, and recommended the council approve the sale as per the purchase agreement. 86.255 Motion was made by Sindt, seconded by Enright to approve and authorize the mayor and clerk to execute the purchase agreement for the sale of lot 6, block 2, Dakota Heights 8th Addition, to Tracy and Sandra Bartels. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Enright, Harvey, Nelson, Zaun, Sindt. 86.256 Motion was made by Sindt, seconded by Harvey to place the money received for the sale of lot 6, block 2, Dakota Heights 8th Addition, into a building fund to be used toward construction of anew city hall. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Harvey, Nelson, Zaun, Sindt, Enright. 86.257 Motion was made by Nelson, seconded by Sindt to adjourn the special council meeting. Roll call was taken on the motion. Ayes, Nelson, Zaun, Sindt, Enright, Harvey. Time: 9:45 p.m. Resp ull submi ted, ~ ~ Patrick E. McGarvey, City Cler Duane Zaun, Ma 7 • ~ • CITY OF LAKEVILLE AGENDA SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1986 7:00 P.M. ORCHARD LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 16530 Klamath Trail Call to order. 1. Roll call. 2. Public hearing on the proposed street improvements to Judicial Road, 162nd Street, 163rd Street, Linch Avenue and connected cul-de-sacs, Improvement Project No. 86-5. a. Attest to the legal notice. b. Presentation of the project and costs. c. Questions and comments. d. Motion to close or continue the public hearing. e. Motion to approve or deny the project. 3. Public hearing on the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm drainage and street improvements for Oak Shores, Jackson's First and Rolling Oaks South Additions area, Improvement Project No. 86-3. a. Attest to the legal notice. b. Presentation of the project and costs. c. Questions and comments. d. Motion to close or continue the public hearing. e. Motion to approve or deny the project. 4. Any other business. 5. Adjourn.