Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/11/1996 Council MinutesCOUNCIL MEETING DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT MARCH 11, 1996 CITY OF LINO LAKES COUNCIL MINUTES : March 11, 1996 . 6:30 P.M. . 7:50 P.M. : Bergeson, Kuether, Lyden, Neal, Landers : None Staff Members present: City Attorney, Bill Hawkins; City Engineer, David Ahrens; Community Development Director, Brian Wessel; City Administrator, Randy Schumacher and Clerk -Treasurer Marilyn Anderson. SETTING THE AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Kuether moved to approve the consent agenda as presented. Council Member Lyden seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of Minutes, February 12, 1996 - Approved as presented. Consideration of Disbursements: February 29, 1996 - Approved as presented. March 11, 1996 - Approved as presented Centennial Fire District - Approved as presented. OPEN MIKE No one appeared under open mike. 6:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING, CENTENNIAL MIDDLE SCHOOL STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT, DAVID AHRENS Mr. Ahrens explained that the Centennial School District officials have requested that the public hearing for the proposed improvements to serve the Centennial Middle School be continued to March 25, 1996 so that they can look at the financial impact of these improvements. Staff, consultants and Centennial School District officials have held PAGE 1 COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 11, 1996 several neighborhood meetings. However, since Centennial School District has made the request to continue the hearing, no presentation will be made at this time. Council Member Kuether noted that there are several options regarding Elm Street and asked that this matter be discussed at the next Council work session. Mr. Ahrens noted that residents will have an opportunity to voice their concerns and suggestions at the public hearing. Mr. Schumacher noted that although Centennial School District requested that the hearing be continued, they are still under certain time limits and do want to keep on track. Council Member Neal moved to continue the public hearing to March 25, 1996 at 6:30 P.M. Council MemberLyden seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING, IMPROVEMENT OF 12TH AVENUE/HOLLY DRIVE, DAVID AHRENS Mr. Ahrens explained that the public hearing for the proposed improvements to 12th Avenue/Holly Drive was continued from February 12, 1996. Staff met with the Trapper's Crossing developer and the developer's attorney to discuss road improvements, estimated construction costs and the $250,000.00 street assessment. Another meeting is scheduled for Friday, March 15, 1996. Staff will bring information from this meeting to the next Council work session. Staff is asking that the public hearing be continued to March 25, 1996. Council Member Bergeson moved to continue the public hearing to March 25, 1996, 6:30 P.M. Council Member Kuether seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT, DAVID AHRENS Consider Resolution No. 96 - 29, Adopt Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for the Trunk Highway 49 Turnback (Fourth Avenue to Lilac Street) - Mr. Ahrens used the overhead projector to show the location of this portion of Trunk Highway 49 and explained that MnDOT has identified Trunk Highway 49 as a highway to be under the jurisdiction of Ramsey County, Anoka County and the City of Lino Lakes. Currently, Ramsey County has jurisdiction of Highway 49 from Highway 694 to County Road J in Shoreview. Anoka County has adopted a MOU for the portion of Highway 49 from County Road J north to Fourth Avenue. The portion of Highway 49 proposed to be under the jurisdiction of Lino Lakes is from Lilac Street to Fourth Avenue. This segment is approximately 0.2 miles in length. The MOU is a nonbinding statement of intent for the turnback of Highway 49. A formal agreement between the City and State will need to be executed to identify the terms of the turnback. The MOU states that the City can utilize Municipal State Aid Turnback Account funds for improvements to the roadway. Turnback routes placed on the PAGE 2 COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 11, 1996 Municipal State Aid System are designated mileage above the 20% limit on mileage available to be on the Municipal State Aid System The ability for the City to have more than the normal 20% limit designated as MSA does provide for some compensation to the City for receiving this roadway. sify Issues regarding the turnback proposal include the appropriateness of this segment of Highway 49 as a State roadway. Fourth Avenue, both north and south of the turnback segment, are City MSA roads. If the County and the State execute the turnback of the remaining portion of Highway 49, the segment that is proposed to be a City turnback would be an "orphaned" segment of State Highway. Staff is recommending that the MOU be adopted by the City Council. Mr. Ahrens introduced Mr. Robert Brown, Metro Division State Aid Engineer and explained that he would answer questions from the City Council. Council Member Kuether asked why MnDOT wants the County and the City to take over Highway 49 and what would the benefits be. Mr. Brown explained that MnDOT is in the process of a statewide venture to turnback roads that are not part of the interstate roadway system. It has always been the intent for MnDOT to keep jurisdiction of roadways of major significance statewide. Prior to the construction of the interstate systems, roadways that are now being turned back were important roadways of the region. As the interstate systems became operational, these roadways became secondary roadways or even city streets. Mr. Brown explained that MnDOT developed funding, standards and a way of doing business that was appropriate for interstate and large highways dealing with large amounts of traffic. During the past 10 to 15 years, it has become apparent that the MnDOT program does not always fit very well in many county or community settings. The turnback program was established by MnDOT which identified the roadways to be turned back and what needs to be done to the roadway in the form of preservation or overlay before the roadway was actually turned back to the county or municipality. Mr. Brown noted that sometimes the need for capital improvements to a roadway becomes an issue for secondary and smaller roadways. He explained that the improvement that is required by MnDOT standards is not always the right thing to do for smaller roadways. The focus is to get roadways of particular functional classifications or particular usage into the proper level of government. MnDOT intends to stand behind interstate highways, interchanges and freeways and at the same time does not plan to dump older, smaller highways on other agencies. According to state statute, MnDOT does have the authority to "dump" roadways onto lower jurisdictions. However, from a practical standpoint, MnDOT will not do that. MnDOT will seek to find situations that are "win,win" for everybody. Mr. Brown explained that MnDOT and Ramsey County entered into a MOU whereby Ramsey County determined that it was the best solution for about 71 miles of roadway to become part of the Ramsey County road system. Highway 96 was part of that MOU. Ramsey County felt that these roadways were not getting the level of attention that they PAGE 3 COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 11, 1996 needed as part of the MnDOT system. The northern part of Ramsey County was experiencing heavy development. As Ramsey County acquired jurisdiction over these roadways, they began establishing capital improvement programs for each roadway. Mr. Brown used the overhead projector to show the location cithe portion of Highway 49 that is proposed to be turned back to Lino Lakes. He explained that if the City agrees to the turnback proposal, MnDOT will pay the City a considerable amount of turnback dollars that could possibly pay almost all of the construction on the new intersection, Lilac Street/Lake Drive. Mr. Brown said that Article 3 of the MOU which is the basis for determining the amount of compensation that the City will receive if the City agrees to accept the 0.2 miles of Highway 49. This Article also explains that the turnback money may be utilized for other improvements. Mr. Brown also explained money for the turnback fund comes from a portion of the gas tax. He outlined how gas tax is divided between all of the affected jurisdictions. Mr. Brown said that the City should pass a resolution designating the 0.2 miles of roadway as a MSA street. Upon receipt of the resolution, MnDOT will add the additional roadway to the Lino Lakes MSA system. There are two (2) reasons for the City to accept the turnback proposal. The first reason is that the 0.2 miles will be placed on the Lino Lakes MSA list of MSA streets. The second reason is that the City will have access to turnback funds which could be used to move the access from Lilac Street to Lake Drive further north. If the City decides not to use turnback funds to build a new Lilac Street entrance to Lake Drive, the City could access turnback funds for maintenance. Council Member Kuether asked what is the benefit to Lino Lakes. Mr. Brown said the immediate benefit is that the City would have a way to move ahead with the relocation of the access to Lilac Street. There would be money to do the project. He explained that some of the counties and municipalities look at this as an empowerment move. Council Member Bergeson asked Mr. Brown if he is saying that if the City moved ahead with rebuilding the access to Lake Drive, MnDOT would pay for the entire project? Mr. Brown explained that MnDOT would not be a part of the reconstruction. Council Member Bergeson asked if the City goes ahead and approves the turnback, how much money would be available through the turnback fund. Mr. Brown said that it depends on how the project looks when the project is presented to MnDOT. There are some things that MnDOT will not pay for such as sprinkler system or exotic landscaping. Council Member Bergeson asked if MnDOT has completed the turnback of Highway #49 to Ramsey County. Mr. Brown explained that the MOU with Ramsey County was completed and signed about three (3) years ago. He said that MnDOT has been working under that MOU since then. Ramsey County decided that Highway #49 was their next desired roadway. Therefore, MnDOT started working with Ramsey County, Anoka County and the City of Lino Lakes to put together a plan to turnback Highway #49 to PAGE 4 COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 11, 1996 Ramsey County, Anoka County and the City of Lino Lakes. Council Member Bergeson said that there is a rumor that Ramsey County will not accept the south end of Highway #49 until the road is brought up to County street standards. Mr. Brown said that is not true. About a year ago MnDOT invited Ramsey County to a meeting and showed Ramsey County what is being planned. Several other meetings with n ighborhood groups were held. After a couple of meetings, Ramsey County said that the process was not going as planned. Ramsey County told MnDOT that they could work with the community better than MnDOT and decided to prepare a plan to turnback the portion of Highway #49 in Ramsey County. MnDOT said go ahead and when the roadway gets turned back to Ramsey County, MnDOT will "fix" the road. Mr. Brown again said that some of the MnDOT road standards do not fit well in neighborhoods. Therefore, Ramsey County will prepare a plan for the turnback of Highway #49 and then the road will be upgraded according to the Ramsey County plan. Mr. Brown said that similar action will be taken with Anoka County. When MOU's have been completed with Anoka County and the City of Lino Lakes, the task of preparing the paper trail will begin. Council Member Lyden explained that if the City of Lino Lakes is interested in allowing the turnback of this 0.2 tenths of a mile, is it possible for the City to go forward and with a specific proposal for extending Apollo Drive and MnDOT would fund the extension from their capital program? Mr. Brown said that MnDOT would not need final plans, only a concept plan. He said that moving the entrance to Lilac Street up to a quarter of a mile from the bridge ramp is clearly in the interest of MnDOT. Council Member Kuether asked if the City would have a final written agreement with MnDOT. Mr. Brown said that everything that is contained in the MOU is the basis for a final agreement. He also noted that unless there is funding under Article 3.1, a formal agreement does not need to be developed. The turnback and the agreement for funding the extension of Apollo Drive can be completed according to State Statutes. Mr. Brown restated that MnDOT has authority under State Statute to "dump" that portion of Highway #49 on the City. However, MnDOT will not do this and will make every effort to come to an agreement regarding the turnback. Council Member Kuether referred to page 6 of the MOU noting that there are 14 items that need to be addressed before this portion of Highway #49 is turned over to the City. She asked Mr. Ahrens if all these items should be completed prior to approving the MOU. Mr. Ahrens said that he understood that the MOU would lead into a formal agreement. The formal agreement would define the 14 items on page 6 as well as the percentage of participation by MnDOT. Council Member Kuether said that the Council needs some kind of idea of how many years are left on this portion of Highway #49 before the City would agree to the turnback. She explained that if the City is given money for the extension of Apollo Drive in return for accepting this portion Highway #49, and this portion of Highway #49 requires substantial rebuilding in four (6) to six (6) years, where will the money come from to rebuild the road? Mayor Landers asked if the City was looking at extending Apollo Drive approximately 600 feet? Mr. Ahrens said that the extension would be approximately 400 to 600 feet. He explained that these PAGE 5 COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 11, 1996 figures came out of the Apollo Drive project and realizing that there is a concern about the current Lilac Street, Lake Drive intersection and the close proximity of the freeway ramps. Mr. Ahrens further noted that proposed commercial/industrial development also was considered. Mayor Landers said that he had a hard time comprehending the need for more than a 600 foot extension of Apollo Drive. Mr. Ahrens_,gaid.that the City has not identified an exact number of feet that Apollo Drive would be extended. He said that the development on the east side of Lake Drive would have an impact on how Apollo Drive is extended. Council Member Neal asked if the residents along Lake Drive are aware that Apollo Drive may be extended north and that their houses may be in the path of the extension. Mr. Ahrens said that it is his understanding that they are all aware of these future plans. Council Member Neal noted that the VFW owns property on the north side of Lilac Street that would be impacted by the extension of Apollo Drive. He explained that the VFW is in the processing of selling this parcel and asked what impact will the extension of Apollo Drive have on this parcel and the sale of the land. Mr. Ahrens said that he was not sure if the VFW was aware of the possible extension of Apollo Drive. However, if Apollo Drive is extended, more of the parcel could be open for development. Mr. Wessel said that the Community Development Department has kept the VFW update about the possible extension of Apollo Drive. He noted that he had talked to the VFW realtor this morning. Mr. Wessel explained that the time frame for extending Apollo Drive has not been determined. He said that this is still just a concept which was developed prior to his being employed by the City. Council Member Bergeson said he felt that the only advantage for this City to accept the turnback from the State is to get funding for the extension of Apollo Drive. He said he felt that the City Council does not have enough information at this time to know how feasible the Apollo Drive extension would be. He asked that Mr. Wessel and Mr. Ahrens prepare a sketch of how the Apollo Drive extension might look and the approximately footage. Council Member Bergeson said that although the MOU has been presented as a non-binding resolution, it is his opinion that the City may be in a better position to negotiate before the City signs the MOU than after the City signs the MOU. He asked that action on the MOU be delayed until a little sketch is prepared by staff and how the City could prepare a project extending Apollo Drive. Mayor Landers noted that Apollo Drive is an Anoka County road and asked if Anoka County would contribute towards the construction of the Apollo Drive extension. Mr. Ahrens said that he expected that Anoka County would pay a substantial amount of the cost just as they have with the original Apollo Drive and the Otter Lake Road realignment. Mayor Landers said that he would like additional information on a cost sharing plan so that the City Council would have an idea of the exact cost to the City. Mr. Ahrens said that the cost sharing plan would be easy to determine. Mr. Ahrens said that he could have this information for the first meeting in April. PAGE 6 COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 11, 1996 Council Member Lyden asked that, presuming there will be an agreement, is there a time constraint on when the money is available for the capital improvement. Mr. Brown explained that MnDOT would need to receive a set of plans for the extension of Apollo Drive within five (5) years of the agreement. Once the plans are received, the City may have to wait a year or two before funding is available. Mr. Blown said that MnDOT may be in a position to turnback that portion of Highway #49 by November 1, 1996. If the turnback agreement is approved for that date, the City will have five (5) years to apply for turnback funding. Mr. Brown was asked about the life of this particular portion of Highway #49. He said that it was overlaid about two (2) years ago and the life expectancy is about seven (7) years. Mr. Schumacher asked what are the future plans for the I -35W interchange at Lake Drive. Mr. Brown said that MnDOT does not have any plans for the interchange. The condition of the bridge is monitored annually, a traffic count traffic is done every other year and accidents are reviewed annually. None of the indicators that cause MnDOT to start doing something have not yet happened. The interchange is adequate. Mayor Landers thanked Mr. Brown for coming this evening. Council Member Bergeson moved to return the matter to staff and requested a report containing the information previously requested be brought back to the City Council on April 8, 1996. Council Member Kuether seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of Resolution No. 96 - 02 Awarding Construction Contract, Marshan Lake Condominiums Street and Utility Improvements - Mr. Ahrens explained that on January 18, 1996, 13 sealed bids were received and read aloud. The low bid was from C. W. Houle, Inc. for a total of $564,368.40. The high bid was $707,345.81. The engineers estimate was $648,897.00. A bid alternate was included in the bid specification. The alternate is for an extension of sewer service to a couple of residences south of Aqua Lane. If these residents do wish to connect, separate agreements with each homeowner will be required. Mr. Ahrens explained that C. W. Houle, Inc. has completed a number of other projects in Lino Lakes and is capable of performing the work required for this improvement. Mr. Ahrens explained that a major portion of the project will be funded by the developer of the Marshan Lake Condominium improvement and the petitioning properties. The work should begin in April and should be completed in July. Mr. Ahrens recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 96 - 02 awarding the bid to C. W. Houle, Inc. Mr. Hawkins recommended that the bid not be awarded until a completed and signed development contract from the developer Roger Hokanson has been accepted by the City. A draft of the development contract was received in his office this past Thursday or PAGE 7 COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 11, 1996 Friday and he has not had a chance to review the document with Ms. Wyland. Mr. Hawkins said that a letter of credit supporting the proposed assessments has not been received. He said he did not want the City to enter into a construction contract before the developer provided guarantees to support the assessments. Since award of the bid must occur within 60 days of the bid opening, Mr. Ahrens said thate would ask the low bidder to approve delaying award of the bid beyond the 60 day period. Council Member Kuether asked why only sewer is being extended to the properties south of Aqua Lane. Mr. Ahrens explained that municipal water will be stubbed for future extension. Although it is most cost effective to extend both sewer and water at the same time, the residents have only petitioned for sewer service. Council Member Kuether moved to table Resolution No. 96 - 02 and ask C. W. Houle for an extension of time for awarding the bid. Council Member Lyden seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of Resolution No. 96 - 26 Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for the Fourth Avenue Trunk Utility Improvements - Mr. Ahrens explained that bids for this project were opened and read aloud on Wednesday, February 21, 1996 and S. R. Weidema, Inc. was the lowest responsible bidder. He explained that he did not know if the development contract had been executed and if financial guarantees had been received. Therefore, he recommended that this matter be tabled until these concerns have been addressed. Council Member Kuether moved to table Resolution No. 96 - 26 until the March 25, 1996 Council meeting. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of Resolution No. 96 - 28 Approving Final Payment for Country Lakes Estates, Plat 1- Mr. Ahrens explained that construction activity on this project has been completed. The final payment by the City will initiate the contractor's one-year warranty period. Final payment will not be released to the contractor until he has completed his final submittals as per contract requirements. The warranty protects the City if there is any defective work on the project. Council Member Bergeson asked if the final payment includes the street and if it does, does the street have the final wear course on it. Mr. Ahrens said it does include the street and the final wear course has not been installed. He noted that the final wear course is not normally installed until at least 80% of the lots have had new homes constructed on them. Mr. Ahrens explained that since there is a phase II, it would make sense to install the wear course after at least 80% of the entire project has been completed. He also explained that the developer has been assessed for the wear course so the funds are available to do the wear course work. PAGE 8 COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 11, 1996 Council Member Kuether asked about the second paragraph on the "green sheet". Mr. Ahrens explained that the contractor is required to present lien waivers from his subcontractors and suppliers or certification that all subcontractors and suppliers have been paid, a State of Minnesota Certificate of Withholding State Income Tax and a Consent of Surety to Final Payment from the bonding company which acknowledges that they are aware that the project has been completed and the one-year warranty period has begun. All of this information must be presented to the City prior to release of the final payment. Council Member Kuether moved to adopt Resolution No. 96 - 28. Council Member Bergeson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 96 - 28 can be found at the end of these minutes. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS Consideration of Minutes, November 13, 1995 (Mayor Landers and Council Member Lyden were not Council Members) Council Member Neal moved to accept these minutes as presented. Council Member Kuether seconded the motion. Motion carried with Council Member Lyden and Mayor Landers abstaining. Consideration of Minutes, February 26, 1996 - Council Member Neal moved to accept these minutes as presented. Council Member Lyden seconded the motion. Motion carried with Council Member Bergeson and Council Member Kuether abstaining. Consideration of Resolution No. 96 - 27 Correcting the 1995 Assessment, Living Waters Lutheran Church - Mrs. Anderson explained that an error has been discovered in the 1995 assessment involving the Living Waters Lutheran Church, 875 Birch Street. The church paid their assessment in full on November 9, 1995. The record of payment did not reach the City Clerks office and consequently the payment was not reported to Anoka County. As a result, the assessment does appear on the Living Waters Lutheran Church 1996 property tax statements. Passage of Resolution No. 96 - 27 will correct the assessment and allow the City Clerk to report the payment and request that Anoka County prepare and mail a corrected tax statement to the church. Mrs. Anderson explained that this error and the error that will be described in the next agenda item were due to some problems with reporting payments. She and the Finance Director have discussed the matter and feel that the problems have been corrected. Mrs. Anderson recommend that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 96 - 27. PAGE 9 COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 11, 1996 Council Member Bergeson asked if the church will be assessed any late charges. Mrs. Anderson said no and explained that the assessment is paid in full and should not have appeared on their property tax statement. An amended property tax statement should be mailed to the church before the first property tax installment is due. Council Member Neal moved to adopt Resolution No. 96 - 27. Council Member Lyden seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 96 - 27 can be found at the end of these minutes. Consideration of Resolution No. 96 - 30 Correcting the 1995 Assessment, 7064 Sunset Road - Mrs. Anderson explained that this agenda item is similar to the previous item. An error has been discovered in the 1995 assessment for 7064 Sunset Road. The owner of the property paid their assessment in full on August 8, 1995. The record of the payment did not reach the Clerks office and consequently was not reported to Anoka County. As a result, the assessment does appear on the property tax statement for this address. Passage of Resolution No. 96 - 30 will allow the Clerk to report the payment and request that a correct tax statement be prepared and mailed to the property owner. Mrs. Anderson recommended that Resolution No. 96 - 30 be adopted. Council Member Neal moved to adopt Resolution No. 96 - 30. Council Member Lyden seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 96 - 30 can be found at the end of these minutes. Council Member Kuether moved to adjourn at 7:50 P.M. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Aye. These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at a regular Council meeting held on April 8, 1996. Clerk -Treasurer hn L. Landers, Mayor PAGE 10 Council Member Neal introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 96 - 27 RESOLUTION ABATING 1996 INSTALLMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT cON PIN. 28-31-22-32-0019 WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, an assessment was certified to the above listed parcel for 1996, and it has come to the attention of staff that the assessment was applied in error, and the City Council has met and has considered the request to abate the 1996 installment of special assessment on the above listed parcel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Lino Lakes, Minnesota, as follows: Adopted by 410 Le-geA4"297‘-/ Marilyn G.Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer 1. The 1996 installment and all future years installments for Special Assessment Fund No. 82363 and 82364 on PIN. 28-31-22-32-0019, Living Waters Lutheran Church, are hereby abated. the Lino Lakes City Council this 11th day of March, 1996. 4 John L. Landers, Mayor The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Lyden and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bergeson, Kuether, Lyden, Neal, Landers. The following voted against same: none. Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Council Member Kuether resolution and moved its adoption: introduced the following CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 96-28 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR THE COUNTRY LAKES ESTATES - PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS. WHEREAS, construction of the Country Lakes Estates - Phase I Improvements have been completed by Richard Knutson, Inc. AND WHEREAS, the one-year warranty period for this project will begin with the final payment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: Final Payment is hereby approved for the Country Lakes Estates - Phase I Improvements. Adopted by the City Council this 11th day of March, 1996. arilyn G. Anderson Clerk -Treasurer n L. Landers, Mayor The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Bergeson and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted In favor thereof: Bergeson, Kuether, Lyden, Neal, Landers. The following voted against same: None. Whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above is a correct copy of a resolution duly passed, adopted and approved by the City Council on March 11 , 1996. Marilyn t .Anderson Clerk -Treasurer L...i • Council Member Neal introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 96 - 30 RESOLUTION ABATING 1996 INSTALLMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ON PIN. 19-31-22-23-0003 WHEREAS, an assessment was certified to the above listed parcel for 1996, and WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of staff that the assessment was applied in error, and WHEREAS, the City Council has met and has considered the request to abate the 1996 installment of special assessment on the above listed parcel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Lino Lakes, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The 1996 installment and all future years installments for Special Assessment Fund No. 1330 and 1344 on PIN. 19- 31-22-23-0003, 7064 Sunset Road, are hereby abated. Adorted by the Lino Lakes City Council this llth day of March, 1996. #44 John L. Landers, Mayor Clerk-Trea-t21 surer y Anderson, C1 urer The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Lyden and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bergeson, Kuether, Lyden, Neal, Landers. The following voted against same: none. Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.