Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2014 <br />Page 6 of 7 <br /> <br />Community Development Director Klatt presented. Zuleger noted that the reallocation of the assessments, the assessments may be paid sooner than the 15 year assessment. The benefits of reallocating it to the platted <br />lots versus at final plat were discussed. That would allow the City to pay down debt sooner. Staff stated that they found many communities commonly do it this way. City Attorney Snyder said he is more familiar with the assessment at final plat. <br />Council Member Smith concerned about a downturn in market posing potential problems. <br />Mr. Klatt explained the proposed reallocations for each parcel. It was also explained that because of the <br />already approved assessment agreements, these specific assessments will be reallocated regardless of council <br />action. Finance Director Bendel noted that the reallocation only affects the remaining 14 years of assessment as the first year is already paid. <br />Council Member Reeves asked for further clarification as to what the benefit is to the city. Mr. Klatt explained again that the first addition already has an assessment agreement. By requiring the payments up front, there is a risk of reluctance by developers to bring forward a final plat due to large payment due. <br />Mayor Pearson noted that the development at Rockpoint Church may have produced at least some payments instead of nothing at this point. The council discussed the pros and cons of the assessment timing. <br />MOTION: Council Member Nelson moved TO DENY THE REALLOCATION OF ASSESSMENTS <br />AGAINST CERTAIN LOTS WITHIN THE SECTION 34 UTILITY PROJECT AREA AS FURTHER DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A” AS ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT. Council <br />Member Smith seconded the motion. <br />Council Member Nelson is in favor of assessing at final plat in order to 1) set the precedent for other <br />developments, and 2) protect the taxpayers up front. Mr. Klatt explained that the developer brought this <br />request forward. <br />Council consensus direction is to collect at final plat. Mayor Pearson would prefer to table this issue and <br />come back with more information. <br />MOTION PASSED 4-1 (PEARSON – NAY). <br />ITEM 9: VOLLEYBALL COURTS AT PEBBLE PARK <br />MOTION: Council Member Bloyer moved TO DENY THE EXPENDITURE OF NO MORE THAN $28,000 IN PARKLAND DEDICATION FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE AND <br />CONSTRUCTION OF A VOLLEYBALL COURT IN PEBBLE PARK. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. <br />Council Member Bloyer explained why he is opposed to the proposal. He does not believe the location is <br />proper or that the demand justifies the improvement. <br />City Administrator Zuleger noted the increase in area volleyball activity and the benefits of sand courts being <br />used. Staff also expects the cost to be lower due to in-house and volunteer help on installation, as well as less <br />expensive sand. <br />Council Member Smith thinks the courts should be located downtown and near local businesses. Council <br />Member Nelson wants the courts in or near the expanded Reid Park. He also does not see the demand. <br />Council Member Reeves supports the request. Parks Commission has fully vetted this issue. The Commission <br />is concerned about downtown due to space and use limitations and uncertainty. The Commission is also <br />looking for alternative recreational opportunities for youth. Mr. Bloyer asked about the status of the Sunfish <br />Lake Park task force. It was explained that the task force is not as far as it wishes in part to the land trust <br />limitations. <br />Mayor Pearson is supportive of the addition of courts, but is concerned about the cost and location.