Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1996/11/12~~r ~~~~ Page 1 November 12, 1996 Mounds View City Council PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 12, 1996 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 CALL TO ORDER The Mounds View City Council was called to order by Mayor Linke at 7:00 p.m. on November 12, 199b. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Linke, Council members Trude, Quick Blanchard, and Hankner ALSO PRESENT: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator Bruce Kessel, Finance Director Pam Sheldon, Community Development Director Cathy Bennett, Economic Development Coordinator Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Bob Long, City Attorney ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: Mr. Whiting, Clerk Administrator, asked that two items be added to the Agenda under Council Business, (D) Setting a date for a Special Council meeting to canvass the election results; and (E) Authorization to Advertise for the position of Administrative Secretary. Ms. Sheldon asked that an item be added to the Agenda under Council Business, (F) Setting a Public Hearing for Monday, November 25, 1996, at 7:15 p.m. and Setting a Public Hearing for Monday, December 9, 1996 at 7:05 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: a. October 29,1996 Regular City Council Meeting. Page 2 November 12, 1996 Mounds View City Council Mr. Quick noted a correction in the minutes. Roll Call should show that he was present at the meeting. MOTION/SECOND: HanknerBlanchard to approve the minutes of the October 29, 1996 Regular City Council Meeting AS AMENDED. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried ACCEPTANCE OF ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES: There were no Advisory Commission minutes to be considered at this meeting. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: There was no Special Order of Business scheduled for this meeting. CONSENT AGENDA: Mr. Whiting, City Administrator read the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Resolution No. 5038, Approving Just and Correct Claims Against City Funds. B. Approval of Resolution No. 5043, Regarding Senior Citizens Hardship Deferral of Special Assessments. C. Approval of Resolution; No. 5032, Reclassifying the Position of Economic Development Coordinator to Director of Economic Development. D. Set Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., Monday, November 25, 1996 to Consider Resolution No. 5041, Approving a Conditional Use Permit for the Joint Use of Parking Facilities at Mounds View Square Shopping Center at 2535-2585 Highway 10. E. Set Public Hearing for 7:10 p.m., Monday, November 25, 199b to Consider Resolution No. 5042, Approving an Amended Conditional Use Permit and a Development Review for Expansion of the Saturn Dealership at 2375 and 2395 Highway 10. E. Licenses for Approval: HVAC Apollo Heating & Vent Corporation -Renewal Boehm's, Inc. dba Boehm Heating Co. -Renewal Four Seasons Air Specialist -New Riverside Mechanical, LLC -New Sewer/Water Metro General Services, Inc. -New • Page 3 November 12, 1996 Mounds View City Council Council member Blanchard asked that Item C be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Mayor Linke asked that Item B be removed. MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Trude to approve the Consent Agenda AS AMENDED (removal of Items B and C). VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Discussion on Items B and C Council member Blanchard noted that Item C would allow for compensation to begin effective October 4, 1996. Due to the fact that this item was postponed at the last meeting for clarification, she felt the effective date should be changed to November. Mr. Whiting explained that October 4, 1996 would be six months from the date of Ms. Bennett's last review. She has assumed most of the duties associated with the Director position and therefore he feels compensation should be retroactive to October 4, 1996. MOTION/SECOND: QuickBlanchard to approve Item (C) of the Consent Agenda. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Mayor Linke asked Mr. Kessell, Finance Director to explain Item (B) regarding the deferral of Special Assessments for Senior Citizens in cases of hardship. Mr. Kessell provided a summary of the City Code which established guidelines for determining the existence of a hardship. MOTION/SECOND: LinkeBlanchard to approve Item (B) of the Consent Agenda. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried RESIDENTS REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR: Mayor Linke explained that this portion of the meeting was designated for anyone who wished t speak to the Council on items that were not on the Agenda. Cameron Obert, 8315 Greenwood Drive, commended the Mayor and Council members for their service on the City Council and noted that he feels they, along with the City staff, have done a very good job in aligning themselves with what the citizens of Mounds View spoke of in the Mounds View 2000 Project. He extended his appreciation to the mayor and council. There were no other comments from the floor. Mayor Linke asked that Council Business, Item A be moved forward for consideration at this time. COUNCIL BUSINESS: Page 4 November 12, 1996 Mounds View City Council A. Presentation of Old Highway 8 Reconstruction Plans and Consideration of Resolutions 5033 Plan Approval, 5034 Cooperative Agreement and 5035 Parking Restrictions. Ms. Kathy Jaschke, the Ramsey County design engineer for the Old Highway 8 reconstruction project was present and provided the public with a brief overview and presentation of the project. She explained that Old Highway 8 will be realigned through county open space and lined up with the Mermaid parking lot to get away from the Highway 10 intersection. A storm sewer will be added and a pond will be built. The roadway will be 52 feet wide with four lanes for the entire length. A bike path will run along the West side for the entire length of the project. Ms. Trude stated she has had several residents ask whether there will be a traffic signal light at the intersection. Ms. Jaschke stated it is not warranted at this'time, however there maybe in the future when work is proposed for Highway 10. She noted that County Road H improvements are also in the County's capital improverhent program for 1999 or 2000 and this matter could be reconsidered at that time also. MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Quick to Approve Resolution No. 5033, Approving the Construction Plans for Old Highway 8 Reconstruction. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried MOTION/SECOND: QuickBlanchard to Approve Resolution No. 5034, Approving Cooperative Agreement Between Ramsey County and the City of Mounds View for the Reconstruction of Old Highway 8. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Hankner to Approve Resolution No. 5035, Requesting Ramsey County to Restrict Parking Along a Portion of Old Highway 8. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Mr. Ulrich, Public Works Director, explained that staff would like authorization from the Council to proceed with the permanent and temporary easement offers to the parties involved in the project. MOTION/SECOND: TrudeBlanchard to authorize staff to proceed with the negotiations for easement acquisitions as necessary for the reconstruction of Old Highway 8. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried PUBLIC HEARINGS: Introduction of Ordinance 590, an Ordinance Relating to Setbacks for Parking Lots, Driveways, and Principal and Accessory Buildings; Minimum Lot Area for Non-Residential Uses Listed as Conditional Uses in Residential Districts; the Continued Use of non-Conforming Parking Lots for Page 5 November 12, 1996 Mounds View City Council Non-Residential Conditional Uses in Residential Districts, and Amending Title 1100, Sections 1102.01,1104.01,1104.02,1106.04,1107.05,1109.0-4,1110.04, 1121.09,1121.11 and 1123.02. Mayor Linke opened the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m. Ms. Sheldon, Director of Community Development, explained that this item relates to non-residential uses that are permitted in residential districts. In a recent proposal to the City of Mounds View for a church to be constructed in a residential district, concern was raised by residents in the area who felt that the five foot requirement was not sufficient to provide adequate buffering between parking lots and residences. One of the residents from the neighborhood proposed an amendment to the City Code, which would increase the five foot requirement to fifteen feet between parking lots and property lines. After review, the Planning Commission has recommended that the setback be 20 feet for sites of 2.5 acres or less, and 30 feet for sites of more than 2.5 acres. In addition, the Planning Commission and staff looked at some other issues which they felt needed to be addressed at the same time such as minimum lot size requirements for larger scale, non-residential uses. The proposed changes would require a minimum one acre lot size for non-residential use. Ms. Sheldon also explained other items which the proposed ordinance would clarify. With no questions from the Council or residents, Mayor Linke closed the Public Hearing at 7:44 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Trade to approve the Introduction of Ordinance No. 590, Relating to Setbacks for Parking Lots, Driveways, and Principal and Accessory Buildings; Minimum Lot Area for Non-Residential Uses Listed as Conditional Uses in Residential Districts; the Continued Use of Non- conforming Parking Lots for Non-Residential Conditional Uses in Residential Districts, and Amending Title 1100, Sections 1102.01, 1104.01, 1104.02, 1106.04, 1107.05, 1109.04, 1110.04, 1121.09, 1121.11 and 1123.02, and to waive the reading. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Public Hearing Considering the Adoption of Resolution No. 5040, Bronson Drive Reconstruction Assessment Roll. Mayor Linke opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Ulrich, Public Works Director, provided an outline of events as they occurred in relation to the Bronson Drive Reconstruction project, including the dates in which letters were sent to affected residents informing them of the status of the project. The final cost of the project was $728,233, with $399,916 being paid by the city, and $328,618 to be paid by residents. Two assessment rolls were prepared, one taking into consideration applying the $15,000 in the storm water management fund to the cost, should it be the council's desire to do so. Mr. Barry Peters, of Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, provided a diagram of the project area and gave a brief summary of the work that was done. He also discussed the final project costs and assessment numbers for the project breaking down the various improvements including the street project, storm ponding, storm sewer construction, sanitary sewer lateral and the sanitary sewer service. Mr. Ulrich provided information on how residents could file an objection to the assessment if they wished to do so. Procedures were also provided on how to file a petition with the city. He noted that the Page 6 November 12, 1996 Mounds View City Council assessment amounts that were provided to the residents did not take into consideration the $15,000 which could, per Council authorization, be applied to the project. City Administrator Whiting indicated that he had received three written objections to the proposed assessments (attachment A): Karen Hemesath, 5396 St. Stephen Street; Dean McBride 5450 Erickson Road; James Schmidt, 5446 Erickson Road. Vera Edmond, 2234 Bronson Drive, asked who would be responsible for the cost of the mailbox stand replacements. Mr. Ulrich noted that mailbox stands were made by the city maintenance staff for those boxes which needed to be moved to the North side of the street and the cost will be covered by the city. Mr. Musgrove, 2151 Bronson Drive, stated he feels he has been deceived by the city. He was told that the tree on his property would be saved, however he later found that the tree was removed. He also felt that the the replacement was totally unnecessary. He was originally told that his assessment would be approximately $2,000; he now has a $6,000 assessment. He feels he has been lied to. Mr. Ulrich explained that at the time the pipes were inspected, it was noted that there were leaky joints and roots in the pipes, which constituted replacement. The tree removal was necessary because the construction crews were unable to work around it. The city replaced the lilac bushes and planted a new spruce tree for the homeowner. The original assessment amounts were based on some very preliminary estimated mock assessments, which take into consideration average costs rather than actual surveys and cost bid items. The assessment amounts were revised on March 8, 1996 and posted at City Hall. Adam Grobove, III, 5344 St. Stephen Street, stated he has never experienced a 30% increase in taxes before and this is essentially what has happened because of the assessment. He asked if this is something he can expect to happen again, as it will defmitely determine where he chooses to live. He also asked if the individual apartment units will be assessed as are the homeowners on Bronson Drive. Mayor Linke explained that this is only the second assessment project Mounds View has undertaken. The next assessment project will be the Old Highway 8 project. In regard to the apartment units, it was explained that the individual renters are not responsible for the assessments, but rather the owners of the building, noting that non-homestead properties generally are taxed higher than homesteaded properties. Mr. Grobove asked why businesses are not required to pay a higher portion as they create much of the traffic in the area. Again, it was explained that businesses also are taxed higher than homeowners. Ann Murray, 5414 Adams Street, stated she feels that residents have not been receiving the information that they should. They should have received a breakdown of exactly what would be done in the area. The notices mailed to property owners did not explain that properties surrounding the project would be assessed for the improvements as well. She also stated her concern as to the amount of time that the residents would have to pay the assessments before interest was added, noting that the holiday season is approaching and an assessment at this time of the year is difficult to pay. She wondered where the interest paid by residents goes. Mr. Kesel explained that the city is front-ending the cost of the improvements with funds that would otherwise be invested and earning interest. Therefore, it helps to defray the interest monies lost. Page 7 November 12, 1996 Mounds View City Council Jim Schmitt, 5446 Erickson Road, suggested that in future assessment cases all affected property owners be notified that they will be assessed for the improvements. He feels the notices were unclear and that there would have been more public input if more were aware that they would be assessed for the improvements even though their properties were not located on Bronson Drive. Bill Warner, 2765 Sherwood Road, stated residents who object to these improvement projects have an opportunity to do something about it. The City Charter is a tool that is available to residents who object to what the council's actions are. Council member Hankner stated she is takes her position very seriously and spends hours each week reading material, making telephone calls and asking questions. She is disappointed that residents do not take time to educate themselves on issues which affect them as residents. There is a point in time wherein it is no longer the city's responsibility to get information out. Residents must take time to pay attention to these matters. Brian Skunes, 5475 Quincy Street, stated he does not recall receiving any of the notices from the City that were mailed out in January and February of 1996. Mr. Ulrich explained that everyone in the drainage district that was originally affected by assessments was to have received a notice, based upon the PIN numbers. received from Anoka County. Ms. Laurie Shoop, 2186 Lambert Avenue, stated she received one letter about the Bronson Drive project, however it did not inform her that her property would be assessed for the improvements. The next letter she received notified her of her assessments. She explained her frustration in getting the assessment letter when she had no clue that it would be happening. This is a common complaint amongst the residents in her neighborhood. Council member Trude stated she had received a telephone call from Karen Hemesath, 5386 St. Stephens Street, who also indicated that the first letter she received was the assessment letter and that she did not receive prior notice. Cynthia Cummins, 5395 St. Stephen Street, stated she would like to see a breakdown of the assessment costs. Mr. Peters explained what she was being assessed for. Bernice Bartz, 2256 Bronson Drive, stated she attended a Council meeting in regard to the project and residents were told that if they objected to the street improvements, a petition could be signed. Not one person took the liberty to do so, therefore, there is no one else to blame. She is pleased with the improvements and happy to be a resident who lives on Bronson Drive. Mr. McBride, 5450 Erickson Road, asked if his whole lot size is being computed in determining the assessment. Mr. Peters explained that this depends upon whether the entire property would drain off onto Bronson Drive. Mr. McBride also felt that the 30 day payment option without interest was unrealistic. He feels that people need more of a warning. Mr. Kessell, Finance Director, explained how the payment plan works. Page 8 November 12, 1996 Mounds View City Council Greg Newman, 5323 Jackson Drive, stated he is being assessed for the storm sewer project. He wondered why Lampert Park is still having water problems whenever there is a storm. He assumed that this problem would be corrected as a part of the improvements. Mr. Peters stated there are some problems with storm sewers in Mounds View with the sizing that was put in and this may be part of the problem. Michelle Madsen, 5420 Adams St., explained that she did receive the first letter -did not understand that her property would be affected and then did not hear again until she received the final letter notifying her of her assessments. David Kraft, 5323 Cliffton Rd., asked for clarification on his assessments. Duane Nelson, 5459 Quincy St., stated he would like to know if there are any other drainage areas coming into EW-6 or 35W-3 from any other area beyond Edgewood and if so, if those residents are assessed as well. Mr. Barry Peters explained that the drainage districts were set up in the original storm sewer plans throughout the city and those are the only ones who paid for it. Laura Sokol-Kraft, 5290 Pinewood Court, stated the 30 day payment requirement is very difficult at this time of the year and she does not appreciate the finance charges being added after the 30 day period, when she had no prior notice. She also questioned why her entire property is being assessed. Mr. Peters explained that her property drains into the system. A discussion followed in regard to drainage problems in front of her property. Mr. Long, City Attorney provided information as to the process any resident should follow if they wish to challenge the assessment. Sue Mitchell, 5493 Quincy Street, stated she was not aware that the improvements to Bronson Drive would affect her property. She did receive both letters, but feels they were unclear. Dennis McCann, 2215 Bronson Drive, asked for clarification on the financing option offered by the city. Mr. Kessel provided an explanation but noted that residents do not have to take advantage of this financing. Diane Weinmann, 2209 Bronson Drive, complimented Mike Ulrich and Julie Trude for their efforts in getting the Wetland cleaned out behind Bronson Drive. The sidewalk has been a great addition to the project. She feels the concerns expressed by residents are a result miscommunication. Many of the details were not conveyed to the residents. Jarmund Schmidt, 5315 Raymond Ave., asked why the project was ever done and if the decision had anything to do with the Bel Rae property. He also had questions in regard to his assessment in comparison to the duplex property across the street from him. Mr. Linke explained that when the streets were looked at, Bronson Drive was considered to be in poor condition. He further noted that this project had nothing to do with the city's purchase of the Bel Rae property. With no further comments, Mayor Linke closed the Public Hearing at 10:22 p.m. Page 9 November 12, 1996 Mounds View City Council MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Trade to approve the transfer of $15,000 in the Storm Sewer Maintenance fund into the Bronson Drive Project fund. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Consideration of Resolution 5040, Adopting Bronson Drive Assessment Roll. In response to questions from the Council on the flexibility on the amount of the interest and when it begins to accrue, Mr. Long, City Attorney, offered the following. He stated under the city's ordinances and state law, the Council has the authority to set the interest rate as long as it is not above the index that is referred to. The Council also has the authority to change the date of when the interest begins to accrue. A discussion followed. It was the general consensus of the Council that the date of when interest begins to accrue should be moved to June 30, 1997. MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Trade to Approve Resolution No. 5040, Adopting Bronson Drive Assessment Roll, AS AMENDED (Part 2, line 5, ...from THE JUNE 30, 1997; and line 7, ...FROM JUNE 30, 1997 UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 1997.) Ms. Trade added that this change was made due to the citizens concern of lack of information in the notices which they received in regard to the Bronson Drive improvements prior to the notice of the assessments. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried COUNCIL BUSINESS: B. Consideration of Resolution No. 5044, Authorizing and Upgrade to the City's Telephone System and a 1996 Budget Modification to Pay for Such Upgrade. Mr. Kessell, Finance Director, explained changes that would be made in the upgrading of the city's telephone system, noting that benefits would include improved service and better utilization of staff time. MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Trade to Approve Resolution No. 5044, Authorizing an Upgrade to the City's Telephone System and a 1996 Budget Modification to Pay for Such Upgrade. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried C. Consider Authorizing the Finance Director to File the Required Annual Disclosure Statements with the SEC and to Negotiate a Contract for Administrative Services for the City's Section 125 Plan. Mr. Kessell explained that Last year the City contracted with Springsted, Inc. to prepare the required disclosure statements at a cost of $1,500 per year. He feels that he could complete this for an out of pocket cost of approximately $500. Additionally, he feels he may be able to save the city money in the administration of the Section 125 plan by changing the Plan Administrator and would like to obtain Council authorization to negotiate with DCA for a lower cost, and if they are unable to modify their fees, enter into a contract with a Plan Administrator who would best serve the needs of the city. Page 10 November 12, 1996 Mounds View City Council MOTION /SECOND: Hankner/Trude to Authorize Staff to Notify Springsted, Inc. that the City is canceling its contract for annual SEC disclosure reporting and authorize the City Administrator to contract for Plan Administration services for the City's Section 125 Plan. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried D. Scheduling of a Canvassing Board Meeting for Monday, November 18, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Whiting explained that this is necessary for the recount for the two year position on the Council in which the election resulted in a five vote difference. The recount will take place at City Hall on Friday, November 15, 1996 at 7:00 a.m. MOTION/SECOND: Linke/Trade to schedule a Canvassing Board Meeting for Monday, November 18, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried E. Authorization to Advertise for the Administrative Department Secretary Position. Mr. Whiting explained that the restructure proposal for the Administration department would result in the creation of a Department Secretary to assist the department with their work. He noted that a copy of the job description was distributed, however he would still like to make some adjustments to it as well as establishing the pay range for the position. MOTION/SECOND: HanknerBlanchard to Authorize Staff to Advertise for the Administrative Department Secretary Position. VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried F. Authorization to Set a Public Hearing for 7:15 p.m. on Monday, November 25, 1996 and for 7:OS p.m. on Monday, December 9,1996. Ms. Sheldon, Director of Community Development, explained that she would like to have the following Public Hearings set: 1) Public Hearing for 7:15 p.m., on Monday, November 25, 1996 to Consider a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor sales of Christmas trees at Mounds View Square, 2535 Highway 10; and 2) Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., on Monday, December 9, 1996 to Consider Ordinance 592, An Ordinance Relating to Mobile Home Park Closings and Amending Title 1000 by Adding a New Chapter 1011 of the Mounds View Municipal Code. MOTION/SECOND: QuickBlanchard to Set Public Hearings for 7:15 p.m. on Monday, November 25, 1996 and for 7:05 p.m. on Monday, December 9, 1996. • VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Page 11 November 12, 1996 Mounds View City Council REPORTS: Report of Council members: Trude: Ms. Trude stated she met with the Parks Commission in regard to the Bel Rae property and they indicated that they would like to see the city try to keep a large space intact and to consider acommunity- based Citizen Task Force. Hankner: No report. Blanchard: No report but extended her appreciation in the quick removal of the campaign signs. Quick: No report. Report of Mayor Linke: Mayor Linke congratulated the Winners of the election. Report of Administrator: Mr. Whiting thanked the election judges for their outstanding efforts in the recent election. Report of Staff: Ms. Sheldon gave the Council a brief update on the easement negotiations with Paster Enterprises for the pedestrian bridge and the possibility of entering into an agreement with Paster Enterprises for an easement in exchange for landscaping improvements for Mounds View Square. Report of Attorney: Mr. Long noted that there would be a meeting of the Airport Task Force on Monday, November 18, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. Mayor Linke noted that the next Council Work Session will be held on December 2, 1996. The next Council meeting will be held on November 25, 1996. Mayor Linke adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, `~~ ~~S~~~f ~~ Tamara D. Saeflce Recording Secretary • /~a ~~~~~~ 1Z> ~g9~ '~~ N~~ r ,~~~s ~; Y~ 1-~ _ ~~~ ~~a~~ ~.~~ o U 6 !~~~ ~ J-~n~ r~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ 9 '~. ~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~:. ~~~ ~~~~ V~~ ~~G~ ~'C1'~~i s~~ ~~~~r ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~3~ ~/~~ ~/~~ N ~J ~~~~y ~a~~ ~~~~~.. ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ .~'y...~ -~`/~ i ~ 2 /5 /~~-,~~ ~~3 ~~, , 5~~~3 ~ ~ ,~35 / J~1C1sSdv ,~,~1 I!~ . S~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ .St. ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~: ~~~~ :~1~..~~ lUfu ~ 1/v , (nl ~ ~ h ~.Y • ~~~~~~~~ 5~2o ac~~-v~ ter-. s~ yyc~ ~. ~~a~' ~f z. z s v G, ,o-~/.~.~ v ~ ~ ~y ,~ /~ s ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~/.~ v ~ ski ~ ~~ s ~~~~~~~~ ~'~ 1 ~ ~~ s3~e F,~„~iC`~. • ATTACHMENT A October 30, 1996 Mounds View City Council Mounds View City Hall Mounds View, MN 55112 ATTENTION: Members of the City Council SUBJECT: BRONSON DRIVE PROJECT Dear Council Members: I am writing this letter in protest to the assesment to my property. I have a number of reasons why as I am listing below: The assesment letter I received yesterday, October 29, 1996 was actually written on October 14, 1996. If you plan on billing residents for this project, wouldn't you think it would be in the residents best interest to get that $$ information in their hands as soon as possible so that families on very, very tight budgets would have ample time to budget for this unknown expense. Your delay in sending the letter is uncalled for. 2. Speaking of this unknown expense, I had no idea that I would be charged for this assesment when my property doesn't even border any of the streets in the project. This charge should have been communicated to the affected residents way back when you the council decided to impose the charge on non Bronson Street residents. Had I known about this, I could have been able to start budgeting for this expense a long time ago. 3. The letter that I mentioned in the beginning was addressed to "Daren Hemesath". To my knowledge there is no one by that name, and after living in Mounds View for almost 7 years now, if you. don't know my name, why should I pa}~ the bill, it v~rill probably get credited to "Daren's" account! Sincerely, I N2~ir C Karen J. Hemesath 5386 Saint Stephen Street, Mounds View, MN 55112 ATTACHMENT A ~~ ~~2z-Cep ~ 1~'/~c.~" _ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~/~ c,~.~ ~Y ~ ~ '~~ ~~ ~~ - ..,~~- .~ /vim jE ~ ~ ~ , s~`~ ~~~x-~--2~~. >-~ ~ c°~ s'_ ' ` ~~.~~ ~zl~- ~~ ~a~-tom. ~ ,r ,~(,~~ d ~%~ i~ ~~~~. .~ Viso , ~~ ~~. ~ ~--<,i~ ~~ ~, • L~ .~ rc- ~ ry=oouu !'t7a1•tt" t)tanU iaa untwunual u • I " m~e . ~i,R.i~ wh, hn; "'°CIe~'. A~LHr~ City of Mounds View r.=, ~~ ~ ~ 3`42 2416 Bronson Drive „, ._, . Mounds View Mn. 55 t t~ Attention; Mr. Charles S. Whiting Clerk-Administrator ATTACHMENT A November 12, 1996 Subject: 1'roposcd assessment for Bronson Drive reconstruction project. Mr. Whiling, T am submitting this letter to abject io the propnsed assessment which was signed October 14, 1996. I believe my property asscssmcnt is too high. 'I7~is past rriday I stopped in the City Office and discussed this matter with Mr. Michael Ulrich, llirector of Public Works. Ne was most helpful in showing me the drainage basin map used to calculate effective assessable land for payment of this project. My property id #f is 08-30-23-12-0030 and my address is 5446 Erickson Road, According to the drainage map, a portion of my property is locsted in the 35W-3 drainage district. Basically from the crown of my house toward the pond north of Bronson Drive. The land frain the crown of my House to i'r;rickson road drains tv another drairu~ge district. 1'he legal property description indicates my lot is 100 X 220 feet. This translates to 22,000 square' feet or O.SOS acres. The assessment notice shows a total of 0.5I acres assessable for the reconstruction of drainage appurtences.l submit that only that portion oi'my lot withui the 3SW 3 drainage district should be assessed !'or this project. The crown of my house is approximately 65 feet from the edge of lrickson road, 1 believe the appropriate acreage should be ] 00 X 155 feet or l 5,500 square feet or 0.35G acres. With the assessed project at $1264.84 per sere, then my assessment should be $450.28. Please review my this objection at your earliest convenicncc, thanks. Sincerely, ~..' a° X.z~. lames L. Selunidt :~ ~ ~ ,C C,yj. ~~ ,~:;,~ ~~ ~; ,:; •