09/09/2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 Councilmember Carlson noted a letter had been submitted by Mr. Funkhouser with concerns regarding the easement, oak trees and major survey discrepancies. She questioned whether City staff has addressed these concerns. City Engineer Studenski stated City staff has reviewed these concerns and would have worked through them with the plans and specifications. Councilmember Carlson noted the proposed schedule would have an assessment hearing being held on February 10, 2003. She questioned whether the City would first hire an appraiser to ensure that the proposed assessments would not exceed the amount the improvements would increase the property values. City Engineer Studenski noted this process had been discussed previously. He indicated once the plans and specifications were completed, the residents would have an opportunity to vote for or against the project prior to ordering in the improvements. Community Development Director Grochala noted, because this was a citizen initiated project, the intended process had been to prepare the plans and specifications, advertise for and award the bid, then hold the assessment hearing. If, during the subsequent 30 -day appeal process, an appeal of the proposed assessments was submitted, then the City would have the option of either hiring an appraiser or dropping the project. Councilmember Carlson expressed concern that during a similar project in the past the City had not hired an appraiser upfront. She questioned whether there may be means to bring down the cost of the project for those residents who would not benefit from the improvements. Councilmember Carlson referred to a League of Minnesota Cities document prepared by Duke Addicks which stated that the City must have an appraisal in order to support the proposed assessments. Community Development Director Grochala indicated, per Chapter 429, the City has the right to move forward with a public improvement project, providing the project is approved with a super - majority vote of the full Council, regardless of whether the project is approved by the affected residents. However, he indicated the City of Lino Lakes has additional requirements whereby if a petition is received against an improvement project that contains more signatures than the petition requesting the improvements, then the City can drop the project. Community Development Director Grochala felt at this point the issue of assessments was a moot point. He indicated, because of the recent petition received in opposition of the proposed improvement project, City staff must now consider the options available, which was the reason staff has requested that this item be tabled. Mayor Bergeson agreed that City staff has made a request to table consideration of this project, which he felt should be honored. City Administrator Waite Smith noted the petition received last Friday indicated that the residents have not been advised on what the unit cost will be from the City. She asked if City staff understood this concern. 19