Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/13/1981 Council MinutesAugust 13, 1981 47 The special meeting of the Lino Lakes City council was called to order at 7:30 P.M., August 13, 1981, by Mayor Gourley with all Council members present. Mr. Steve Mattson, Juran 6 Moody, Mr. Wayne Long and Mr. Bob IIFrigaard, OSM, Mr. Ken Meister, Carley, Mr. Locher, Attorney and Mr. Schumacher were also present. 1 i MINUTES Mr. Kulaszewicz moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of August 10, 1981. Seconded by Mr. McLea. Motion carried with Mr. Jaworski abtaining. ALTERNATIVES CONCERNING PROJECT 81 -01 Mr. Steve Mattson presented his analysis of the two figures provided by OSM. He reported that, as of this date, the bonds are selling at 12%, He alo pointed out that with the elimination of the area assessment, there would need to be additional funding by 1985/86. Mr. Mattson then went through his analysis and explained the figures to the Council. He presented the anticipated disbursements and income, noting there would be a deficit figure in 1985.85, and explained this would have to be obtained from other sources. This could be either the use of the system or from a mil levy or both. Mr. Mattson wanted the Council to understand that this proposal is in the worst possible manner. He also pointed out that short term bonds, for a period of three years, can be sold at 10% at the present time and there is provision by State Law that allows a three year roll over on these bonds. Mayor Gourley noted the connection porjections and Mr. Mattson explained that figure representes only those persons abutting the trunk line and does not take into account any extension of laterals. Mayor Gourley asked, if short term bonds were sold, when is an assessment hearing held? Mr. Mattson said this is a very tough question to answer - there is a possibility of the interest changing - he suggested that it would be easier to asses at the maximum and if the bonds are sold at less, then the interest could be lowered. Mr. Mattson pointed out that there are a lot of variables in this proposal. Mr. Wayne Long pointed out that the figures presented by Mr. Mattson re- presented a shortened version of the project that was presented at the Public Hearing. This represented construction of the pump station, the lateral down Hodgson Road, the trunk line up #8 to Elm, over Elm to 4th Avenue, up 4th Avenue to Lilac, with a leteral from Elm to I35 W along #8. The larger project represented is the same project as described with the addition of a lateral along Lilac to #8 and North on #8 for approximately 500 feet. This would then serve all lands that were included in the original petition. Mr. McLean said a third alternative was being discussed - this would end the trunk at the North side of the freeway with an extension up #8 to the free- way. Mr. McLean felt this cost had been represented at approximately 1.9 million. Mr. Long pointed out that was the project cost - the figures presented by Mr. Mattson represented all costs. Mr. Long pointed out that all wet lands and unbuildable lands had been eliminated from the acres that would be assessed. It was pointed out that the 1.9 million dollar project included a shortened lateral along #8 - approximately 1000 feet only. 41, 8 August 13, 1981 It was suggested that som e of the lands on the Northern portion of this project along #8 could be served by a lateral through the Industrial Park to the East thus serving those properties. Mrs. Elsenpeter asked if this third alternative is cost effective? and. Mr. Long felt that the numbers presented by Mr. Mattson would be just scaled down. Mayor Gourley asked if there is an advantage to cutting this project back to the third suggestion or would, with a petition from Mr. Schilling, the figures come back to where they are now - just in two separate projects. and Mr. Long agreed. A recess was called at this point in the meeting to allow the audience to ask questions of the Engineer. The meeting reconvened at 8:35 P.M. Mayor Gourley asked if there were any questions from the Council. Mr. Kulaszewicz had none. Mr. McLean had none - Mrs. Elsenpeter had none. Mrs. Elsenpeter moved that the Council order the project based on alter - native #1, assessing only the abutting property owners, to authorize Juran 8 Moody as Bond Consultants for this project. Mayor Gourley seconded the motion. Mayor Gourley amended the motion to delete the lateral on #8 from Elm Street North, and to state that Juran 8 Moody are being named the Financial Consultants and they are authorized to proceed with the preparation of a sale of temporary bonds. Mr. McLean asked the cost of the project after the deletion of the lateral? Mayor Gourley asked for a second to the amendment. Mr. Jaworski seconded. Mr. Long felt, with the elimination of this lateral, the cost should be about 2/2.1 million. Mr. McLean felt that without these figures, how can this Council approve something that nothing is known about? On the amendment, the voting was as follows: Mr. Kulaszewicz - No; Mr. Jaworski - Yes; Mr. McLean - No; Mrs. Elsenpeter - Yes; Mayor Gourley - Yes. The amendment passed. Mr. McLean questioned the cost figures on this propsoed alternate #4. Mr. Mattson pointed out that nay project that is approved, the figures must be finalized. He would need a couple of days to finalize these figures. Mr. McLean said he would like to point out the current economic con- ditions which have a negative effect on the tax payer's ability to absorb additional committments in that the deteriorating conditions of the State of Minnesota in attracting and retaining industry plus the fact that there is already an over abundance of attractive industrial sites available in close geographical proximity to the Metro area competing for an ever lessening group of companies who might desire sites in this State. The fact that none of the alternatives for sewer that we've been looking at, involve a plan were the benefitted petitioners actually absorb the whole thing. On voting on the motion, the voting was as follows: Mr. Kulaszewicz, - No; Mr. Jaworski - Yes; Mr. McLean - No; Mrs. Elsenpeter - Yes; Mayor August 13, 1981 4 Gourley Yes. The Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED USAGE FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS Mr. McLean moved to sett his hearing for September 14, 1981 at 8:00 P.M. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. LAKES ADD. #1 - OLD LOTS OF RECORD Mr. Schumacher reported this had been brought to his attention by the Build- ing Inspector. In Ordinance #56, old lots of record must meet 60% of the current requirements, to be built on. It was felt that the City could have some liability in this area and he suggested that some specific policy be set for development in this area. These lots have frontage from 78 feet to 100 feet and are on the Lake side and was originally platted for sewer service. Mr. Schumacher suggested requiring the system to be sized to handle the full capacity of the home - or require the system to be installed in such a manner as to insure a back -up system can be installed. Mr. Kluegel said he has no problems with the set backs - even with the lots on Orange Street(which are old lots of record). He is concerned with the possibility of a second 'system being needed and no place to install. Mr. McLean suggested that the City Administrator get together with the staff and formulate some suggestions for Council consideration. I Mayor Gourley asked if a system is not designed to conform with the number of bedroom potential of the home and Mr. Kluegel said, Yes. Mayor Gourley suggested that this Council require a second site be available on the site. ENGINEER's REPORT - 49 CLUB SEWER PROJECT Mr. Meister reported on the alternative methods by which this cost could be assessed to those properties involved. The first method is based on an equal charge of $6,468.00 per unit; 2) based on construction and usage $2,310.00 per unit; 3) normal cost per unit - 2700.00 per lot for 4 lots and the 49 Club would pay the balance of 21,543.00. Mr. Meister said they are looking for some direction from the Council. The matter of how many units should be assessed to each location was dis- cussed and it was decided that the Ice Cream Parlor should be assessed two units and the 49 Club only 9 units. Mr. McLean moved that the assessment policy be according to alternate #3. Seconded by Mrs. Elsenpeter. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE CODIFICATION Mr. SChumahcer pointed out this action had been budgeted for in the 1981 budget in the amount of $6,000.00 and the same amount in 1982. Mr. Schumache reported that four firms had been contacted and interviewed. The results were 1) 7,000.00; 2) 5,500.00; 3) 10,500.00; 4) 8,500.00. There are some flexiability in the number of copies provided. Mr. Schumacher recommended the firm of Collins, Hoff and Allen be awarded the contract for this pro- ject. This firm ahs very good credentials, has worked for the League of Minneosta Cities, and has done this work for other Cities. 50 August 13, 1981 Mayor Gourley asked if there had been a contract prepared and Mr. Schumacher said he only had a letter of intent. Mr. Locher suggested that a contract be written and he suggested that this be forthcoming from the firm. Mr. Schumacher will contact the firm with this information and also request that a payment schedule be submitted. A recess was called at this point in the meeting - the meeting reconvened at 9:45 P.M. REAPPORTION ASSESSMENTS ON BLACK DUCK DRIVE - LAKES ADD. # 7. Mayor Gourley reported that he had talked to the developer and he has agreed to the administrative costs. Mr. Schumacher reported that this request is to spread the existing assessments on Outlot H over the pro- posed 44 lots equally. There must be another hearing for an amended assessment. Mr. Schumacher had recommended that an administrative cost of $300.00 be assessed to the developer. The Council is agreeable to this request with an additional $300.00 administrative cost to be paid by the developer. The Clerk is to prepare the assessment roll for the next Council meeting and a hearing date will be set at that time. Mr. Blackbird said the administrative costs will be a cash payment to the City and not a part of the assessment. PETITION - IMPROVEMENTS LAKES ADD. #7. Mr. McLean moved that the City Engineer, Milner Carley, be instructed to prepare a feasibility report for this improvement. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Mayor Gourley suggested that some agreement with the developer for a financial guarantee in order to avoid the problems that surfaced when the improvements were put in on Black Duck. There was the suggestion of a surety bond in the amount of 12 time the estimated costs be provided to the City. Mr. Blackbird said he had done some preliminary work on the costs and said ti whould be areound $450,000. The would mean there should be a surety bond in the amount of $600,000. 1 Mr. Balckbird asked if the City would consider a cash amount being deposit- ed in the bank for City use? He said surety bonds are almost impossible to obtain. Mr. Schumacher felt the amount of money to be deposited should be based on how the assessments are spread. Mr. Jaworski suggested that each lot that is developer - 12 times the assessment be paid in full, thus insuring there is an escrow amount on deposit at all times. Mr. Balckbird said they would agree to one or the other. Mayor Gourley asked that this be worked out with Mr. Schumacher. Mr. McLean asked what type of security should the City require to' be on deposit before the feasibility study is ordered and Mr. Locher said, the best would be cash. Mr. Locher read the Ordinance that pertains to this requirement. Basically, what the Council is asking from the Engineer is a preliminary cost estimate in order for this security amount to be set, then the August 13, 1981 feasibility study ordered and then plans and specifications. Mayor Gourley asked Mr. Locher if this was correct and Mr. Locher said, Yes. Mr. Jaworski asked if this could be done with a contract and what kind of a cost are involved? Mr. Meister said between $5000.00 and $10,000.00. 51 Mr. Jaworski moved to amend the motion to state, that prior to proceeding with the feasibility study, a contract be set up with the developer stating that the developer will be responsible for the costs incurred for prepara- tion of the feasibility study. Seconded by Mr. McLean. Motion and amend- ment were voted on as one and carried unanimoulsy. ADJUSTMENT OF FEE SCEDULE - LICENSES AND PERMITS Mayor Gourley moved to table this matter and consider at budget hearings. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Motion carried unanimously. ATTORNEY's REPORT. Mr. Locher had no report. ORDINANCE - MORATORIUM ON PLATTING This Ordinance sets a moratorium on all platting outside the designated sewer areas. Mr. Jaworski asked, if a plat has been started, will this Ordinance apply to that plat also? Mr. Locher said this would be a Council decision. Mayor Gourley and Mr. McLean felt that anything that has been presented to P &Z should be allowed to continue. Mr. Schumacher pointed out that this Ordinance was to eliminate the necessity of amending the Comprehensive Plan and to allow the City time to set the controls in motion after the Comprehensive Plan has approval. Mayor Gourley felt that the cut -off should be immediate and only items that have been received in the office and placed on the : &Z agenda as of this date should be allowed to continue. Mrs. Elsenpeter moved to adopt this Ordinance and request the Clerk to publish. SEconded by MR. Jaworski. Mayor Gourley amended that the cut -off be established as to the work that was in the offices as of this date. It was suggested that the cut -off be as of the date of publication. Mr. Jaworski moved to make the cut -off be the work that is in progress as of the date of publication. Seconded by MR. Kulaszewicz. Motion carreid. FIRE FIGHTING SERVICES Mr. Jawroski felt that a special meeting should be held for this study to be considered. Mrs. Elsenpeter moved to set a special meeting for Wednesday, September 2, 1981 at 8:00 P.M. Seconded by MR. McLean. Motion carried unanimously. SUMMARY - ORDINANCE #83 This is for publication the new State Law. Mrs this summary. Seconded in leiu of the entire ordinance made possible under . Elsenpeter moved to authorize the Clerk to publish by Mr. Kulaszewicz, Motion carried unanimously. August 13, 1981 OLD BUSINESS Cable TV Survey - Mrs. Elsenpeter noted this was in the last packet and this was an analysis of the survey that hadn been mailed. The first meeting of the Advisory Commission has been held and there will be a second one sometime this month. Mrs. Elsenpeter asked for a second alternate since it is improtant to have both representatives present at those meetings. This will be done by Resolution at the next meeting. METRO STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Schumacher said that Metro Staff has reported that the City's Comprehensive Plan is consistent and the only problem was in the area of trails around Otter Lake. Mayor Gourley felt thsi had been dropped at a meeting last year. Mr. McLean asked if this was the winter trails? he said this is City owned land and the proposal was by this City. Mr. Schumacher said the other issues were 1) what the City does with its solid waste, and 2) solar access. These should be addressed. NEW BUSINESS News Letter - Mr. Schumacher asked for authorization to send out a news letter. Mrs. Elsenpeter moved to authorize this action. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Mrs. Elsenpeter asked who was to do this? Mayor Gourley asked for a vote on the motion - this can be discussed later. Motion carried unanimously. Shenandoah III - Mayor Gourley said he had gone through this development and found the curbs were bitumious and not concrete, which is required by Ordinance. Mayor Gourley said a week later the curbs are already damaged by either bicycles or cars. with some places where there has not been any back fill and they are deteriorating. Mayor Gourley said he was very sur- prised to find that concrete curbs had bot been installed since this had been discussed with the developer sometime earlier. He was also surprised that this work had been supervised by Carley Engineering since this firm had only been authorized to compete hsi work on Ulmer's Addition. Mr. Meister felt that any work this firm had sarted at that time, they would be allowed to finish, and this was one of the projects. He said they had a contract with the developer and this contract must be honored. Mr. Meister said this type of curbs was in the plans and specifications approved by this Council in 1979. Mayor Gourley asked if compaction tests had been done and Mr. Meister said, Yes. Mayor Gourley said this is part of the new oridnance and the curbs are part of an old oridnance - why was two ordinances followed? Mr. Meister said his firm does the compaction test for the developer and the firm. Mr. McLean usggested that Mr. Carley be invited to a Council meeting to discuss this issue. Mayor Gourley asked what is gonna happen to these curbs and Mr. Meister said they would have to be repaired and they must be allowed to cure for a certain time before they can be backfilled, August 13, 1981 There was some discussion on the mail boxes along Birch Street for this development. Mrs. Elsenpeter noted that this problem is already in the process of being taken care of. There is a closed meeting in the City Administrator's office immediately after this meeting to discuss litagation. Mr. Jaworski moved to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Aye. 10:35 P.M. These minutes were considered and approved at a regular meeing held on August 24, 1981. lerk- Treasurer August 24, 1981 The regular meeting of the Lino Lakes City Council was called to order at 7:30 P.M., August 24, 1981 by Mayor Gourley. Council members present; Elsenpeter, Jaworski. Absent; Kulaszewicz, McLean. Mr. Locher, Mr. Meister, and Mr. Schumacher were also present. On considering the minutes of the May 27, 1981 and July 15, 1981 Public Hearings meetings, it was noted there are several ommissions. Mr. Jaworski moved to table consideration until the next meeting. Seconded by Mrs. Elsenpeter. Motion carried unanimously. IIIConsideration of the August 13, 1981 mimutes was on the agenda next. Mr. Al Ross interrupted to ask if the original plan for sewers had been aborted and Mayor Gourley said the action taken was approval only a shorter version. Mr. Ross said that is not what he asked - he is asking if the main original project was aborted? His concern was that the $600.00 area wide assessment is still on there - Mayor Gourley said that particular assessment was eliminated. Mr. Ross - is there anything in the minutes anyplace that they can see that the project was aborted. Mayor Gourley said the Council did not take any action to abort the project - the action taken was to approve a shorter project. Mr. Ross asked Mr. Locher, isn't it correct that the Council should abort the first priject before they go into a second one? if not, there are a lot of things hanging fire - we as citizens got a right to know and I'd like an answer on that. Mr. Locher said the the action was to put in part of the system and not all and in doing so, automatically rejects the rest of it. Mr. Ross said he understood what he was saying but he would feel a lot more comfortable if it would say it in the minutes - we don't know if that is automatic or not. And sure would make us feel a lot better if it was on a motion in the minutes and I don't see whats wrong with that - it only takes one minute to do it. Mr. Locher said this is inherent in the motion but it's up to the Council if they wish, but there are only three members present this evening. Mr. Ross siad he would have no problem if it was laid over until the next meeting. Mayor Gourley suggested that Mr. Ross bring his question back to the Sept. 14, 1981 meeting. Mr. Ross thought he would be out of town and asked that the records show this.