Loading...
2005-10-25 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2005 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, October 25, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers of city hall. Members Present: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mike Specht, John Beise, and David Osmek. Others Present: City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Bonnie Ritter, Community Development Director Sarah Smith, Patty Guttormson, Paul Willette, Bill Edgeworth, James Bartholomay, Dovid Blinderman, Sai Simonson, Joan Brooks, Kathleen Arendt, Terry Young, Michelle Carlson, Jeff Golfis, Brian Tienter, Gary & Paulette Johnson, R. Njarkara & M. Pavnovic, Michael Briggs, Lavern Deutsch, Herman Kraft, Robert Holman, Roberta Flatten, T.J. Garin, Steve Sullivan, Keith Kullberg, Debra Kullberg, Philip Allen, Gloria Yale, Richard Calton, Curtis Mosley, Jr. Ann Eberhart, Gilbert Chik, Matt & Christine Biehl, Pat Hennessy, Chris Sankey, Richard Strand, Barb Weibeler, Leah Weycker. Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine in nature by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. Open Meeting Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approve Agenda Specht requested the removal of 4A from the consent agenda for discussion. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Beise to approve the agenda as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4. Consent Agenda MOTION by Beise, seconded by Specht to approve items 4B through 4E. Upon roll call vote, all voted in favor. Motion carried. A. (removed) B. Approve payment of claims in the amount of $294,586.77. C. RESOLUTION NO. 05-141: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF UNIMPROVED KELLS LANE ADJACENT TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4685 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. PLANNING CASE NO. 04-40. Mound City Council Minutes -October 25, 2005 D. RESOLUTION NO. 05-142: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT GRANT APPLICATION E. Approve Payment Requests: 1. Payment Request #7 from Magney Construction in the amount of $30,788.17 for Well #8 Pumphouse. 2. Payment Request #3 from Veit & Company in the amount of $931,767.12 for the Lost Lake Dump Response Actions 4A. Approve Minutes Specht requested that the minutes of October 11th reflect that he suggested that the stop signs at Tuxedo and Piper be covered in the off-season rather than be removed to avoid extra cost. The minutes will be change to reflect this suggestion. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to approve the minutes of October 11, 2005 as amended and to approve the minutes of the October 18, 2005 special meeting. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 5. Comments and suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the agenda. - None were offered. 6. Public Hearings A. Miscellaneous Property Improvements to be certified to the County Auditor. Mayor Meisel commented that this levy is for miscellaneous mowing and nuisance abatement, and will be certified for collection in 2006. Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. and upon hearing no comment, closed the hearing at 7:37 p.m. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Specht to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 05-143: RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS AND CERTIFYING TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST. LEVY #16368. B. 2005 Street Reconstruction Project Assessment Hearing and Resolution Adoption City Engineer Bob Dehler of MFRA gave a presentation and overview of the project and how the assessment figures for various improvement areas were calculated. Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Paul Willette, 23881 167th Street, Big Lake, MN, owner of property at 1720 Avocet Lane, voiced two concerns. He has a problem with doing the work first and then proposing the 2 Mound City Council Minutes -October 25, 2005 assessment, and he feels that 8% interest is extremely excessive. He stated that he did not receive a notice for the improvement hearing held in November of 2004. City Staff verified that his name and correct mailing address are on the affidavit of mailing for those notices. Kandis Hanson explained how the 8% interest was set. Osmek also commented that the prime interest rate right now is 6.75%, so 8% is not out of line, because there are also administrative fees involved. John Dean stated that the whole idea of setting the interest rate to that extent is so it makes sense not to have the City act as the banker, but makes more sense to finance the assessment in some other fashion. That's why the statute allows the City to set the interest rate higher for borrowing when we do special assessments. Chris Sankey, 1711 Finch Lane, also indicated that he did not receive a notice for the November hearing and it was also verified that he was sent a notice. He read a letter that he wrote stating that if infrastructure and streets are going to be improved the Council should decide what areas of the budget are going to be cut to pay for these improvements. He claimed that the city knew they couldn't afford street improvements before the project was started, but they did it anyway. Meisel asked the audience who did receive their improvement hearing notice last November and many raised their hands. She stated that notices were mailed to all residents involved in the project and apologized if he didn't receive his, but this project wasn't done after the fact. Dovid Blinderman, 6075 Rusticwood Road, expressed concern over having to pay for curb that is being used by his neighbor as a driveway. He stated he didn't get paid for the driveway easement but now is being assessed for the curb and gutter charges for the footage used as the neighbor's driveway. Carlton Moore stated that the tax records don't show a private easement was granted. John Dean explained that typically the easement should have allocated the responsibility of improvements, and from a legal standpoint it seems that the 6075 Rusticwood Road parcel would be the appropriate parcel to assess. Beise stated that an easement doesn't take property, it takes the use of property and if the easement was not filed, there is no easement. Blinderman continued by stating that he and his wife are both over 65, on social security and is concerned about the ability to pay due to limited resources, decreasing income and increasing taxes. He was provided with the Application and Authorization for Deferral of Special Assessments and state statute and city resolution regulating the procedure. R. Njakara, 1662 Gull Lane, asked why he is being required to pay the assessment before the work is completed. He asked who is collecting interest on the money until next spring when the contractor is paid. John Dean stated that the contractor isn't going to be paid all money due until the job is completed and approved by the City Engineer. Njakara then asked why he is paying property taxes and the assessment. John Dean explained that the property taxes are not being used for the assessable part of the improvement. He is being assessed because he is receiving benefit from the improvement, unlike other residents who don't live on his street and don't receive 3 Mound City Council Minutes -October 25, 2005 benefit. Kandis Hanson explained that according to the current assessment policy, 1/3 of the project cost is paid by the city and 2/3 is assessed to benefited properties. Jeff Golfis, 1669 Finch Lane, stated he has three parcels that aren't sub-dividable and he feels he should be charged for one unit, not three. Moore explained that if he would have administratively combined his three parcels before the project, there would be only one parcel. Sarah Smith explained to the Council that Mr. Golfis' three lots are each just over 3,000 sq. ft., so combined don't meet the 12,000 sq. ft. minimum to be sub- dividable for that district. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to assess the property at 1669 Finch Lane, PID #13-117-24-12-0015, for one unit charge plus the apron charge, and to take the assessment off of PID #13-117-24-12-0014 and #13-117-24-12-0016, with the understanding that Mr. Golfis is in the process of combining these parcels. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Keith and Debra Kullberg, 1567 Bluebird Lane, stated they were charged two unit charges for their parcels. One parcel has their house on it and the other is a small parcel that they use for storage of their boats and snowmobiles. Meisel stated that there is concern because those parcels could be combined and then subdivided. Osmek asked how large the lots were and it was reported that the small one is 40' x 80' and the larger is 80' x 305'. Front footage of both lots combined is 120' which would make it possible to subdivide. Meisel stated that two units charges are a fair assessment according to our current policy. Osmek commented that some sort of subdivision could be configured with those two lots. It was consensus of the Council to leave the assessment roll as is, with each parcel receiving one unit charge. Curtis Mosley, 1598 Canary Lane, stated his road is not finished and can't see how he is obligated to pay the assessment within 30 days if the project is not finished. He was asked if he has to pay within 30 days not to pay the 8% interest and Meisel informed him that he did. Moore explained that the final wear course will be put on next spring, after the surface has a chance to settle, due to utility work in the area. Mosley continued to question why he needed to pay now if the work is not completed and Kandis Hanson informed him that the City is following procedure dictated by State Statute. Bill Edgeworth, 6112 Ridgewood Road, has a lot that abuts both Hawthorne and Ridgewood. He agrees that he should pay for Ridgewood but not Hawthorne because he has no access on Hawthorne. Moore explained that he abuts Hawthorne on the north side of his lot for'/2 a unit, and the other'/2 came from Cherrywood which runs about along about 50% of his property if you were to extend the lot lines. Meisel informed Edgeworth that if given one unit now he would not be assessed anything when Ridgewood is improved, even though his driveway access is on Ridgewood, because 4 Mound City Council Minutes -October 25, 2005 he has been assessed one full unit. Edgeworth requested that he pay for only'/2 unit now and the other'/Z when Ridgewood Road is improved. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to assess PID #23-117-24-34-0031, 6112 Ridgewood Road, for'/2 a unit for the 2005 Street Project, and assess the other'/z unit plus any charges for aprons, etc., when Ridgewood Road is improved. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Richard Strand, 1680 Dove Lane, stated he did receive both the improvement and assessment hearing notices. He has two adjacent parcels on Dove Lane, one being 40 x 80 and the other 80 x 80. He is requesting that he receive only one unit charge for these two lots instead of two units. Sarah Smith indicated that combined these lots would be over 9,000 sq. ft., and the minimum lot size in that district is 6,000 minimum so they could not be combined and subdivided. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to assess one unit charge for 1680 Dove Lane, PID # 13-117-24-12-0034 (the 80 x 80 lot with the house), and not assess a unit charge for PID #13-117-24-12-0035 (the 40 x 80 parcel). All voted in favor. Motion carried. Jim Bartholomay, 6142 Ridgewood Road, is disputing his assessment for Hawthorne stating he has no access from Hawthorne, only from Ridgewood. He also stated that during a storm a neighbor across had a tree limb fall and all the dirt left on the street by the construction company dammed up and washed out his back hill. Moore stated he never received a call on this problem and Bartholomay stated he didn't call anyone but thought it would be fixed because city crews saw the problem when they cleaned up the tree. His assessment for'/Z a unit is for improvement of Hawthorne and he will receive the other'h when Ridgewood is improved. Phillip Allen, 1630 Finch Lane, had questions about project cost and warranty. He stated that the estimate cost was $731,900 for an area with mill and overlay and the final numbers came in at $893,513. He feels a 7'/s% increase is extreme. He also had questions regarding life expectancy of the improved streets and Moore explained the life and maintenance measures that will be used. Barb Weibeler, 6391 Otter Lane, stated that she did receive her notice for the November improvement hearing and did attend that hearing. She stated that at that meeting no mention was made of there being a charge for aprons. She asked if she would receive another letter with her final assessment amount and Meisel told her that the notice she already received will be the only notice sent by mail. Patty Guttormson, 2871 Pheasant Circle, stated she agrees with her assessment and wants it on public record that her driveway will be repaired in the Spring Moore stated 5 Mound City Council Minutes -October 25, 2005 that he has met with Guttormson and her neighbor and due to the grade of the driveways additional work will have to be done in the Spring. Upon hearing no further comment, Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 9:33 p.m. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to adopt the following resolution as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 05-144: RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR 2005 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT -LEVY #16367. 7. Action on Resolution ordering Preparation of Report on 2006 Street Reconstruction Project MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 05-145: RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT ON 2006 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT 8. Action on Recommendation for Youth Advisory Group for Zero Gravity Skate Park MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to approve the formation of the Zero Gravity Youth Advisory Group to assist the Parks and Open Space Commission and Parks Director with overseeing Zero Gravity Skate Park, with tasks to include recommendations on park improvements, advice on maintenance issues, selection of vending machine items, and other duties as needed. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Meisel called for a ten minute recess at 9:41 p.m. 9. Executive Session for Consideration of Anderson vs. City of Mound City Attorney John Dean explained that he, as well as the attorney for the League of Minnesota Cities, has recommended a closed session to discuss litigation strategy and the city's position with regard to the proposed settlement to the Dreamwood litigation. It is felt important to meet and discuss matters of attorney/client privilege. The Council returned to regular session at 9:56 p.m. Dean stated that during the executive session the Council gave direction to the attorneys on how to proceed with the subject litigation. 10. Miscellaneous/Correspondence A. Questions and comments from Councilmembers B. Correspondence: Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative C. Correspondence (draft): Mound Shoreland Flexibility Request 6 Mound City Council Minutes -October 25, 2005 11. Adiourn MOTION by Specht, seconded by Osmek to adjourn at 10:00 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Jerk !~ %~i Mayor Pat Meisel 7