1981-09-30 139
September 30, 1981
SPECIAL MEETING
Of THE
CITY COUNCIL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a special meeting of the City Council of
the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at Shirley Hills
Elementary School, 2450 Wilshire Blvd. in said City on September 30, 1981, at
7:00 P.M.
Those present were: Mayor Rock Lindlan, Councilmembers, Robert Polston, and
Gordon Swenson. Councilmembers Pinky Charon and Don Ulrick were absent for
the first few minutes of the Meeting. Also present were: City Manager,
Jon Elam; City Attorney, Curt Pearson; City Engineer, Skip McCombs and persons
from his staff John Cameron and John Christianson.
The Mayor presented an affidavit of publication in the official newspaper of
the notice of Public Hearing on said.1980-81 Street Improvement Assessments.
The Mayor then opened the Public Hearing for input on said 1980-81 Street
Assessments.and explained that this Public Hearing is for general questions and
comments on the assessments to be levied.
Councilmember Charon arrived.
The City Attorney explained the legal basis for the hearing.
The City Engineer explained the construction work completed and the final
costs for each project.
The following persons were present with questions or comments:
Norbert Ebert, 2600 Commerce Blvd, Mound, MN.
Question: Why were all the streets and curbs around the parks done this
year?
Answer: The parks were not all done this year. Parks are assessed back to
the City therefore, those assessments are spread over the whole
city not just the people being assessed for this project.
Audrey Luse, 2017 Arbor Lane, Mound, MN.
Comment: Didn't think Arbor Lane was to be done at all.
Answer: Arbor Lane has been in the plans since the preliminary plans
were accepted.
Del Matheison, 2032 Arbor Lane, Mound, MN.
Comments: Agreements were made with Mr. Lyle Swanson or the residents
would not have given easements.
Mr. Matheisoon and Ms. Audrey Luse were asked to see John Cameron in
the next room regarding the problems with Arbor Lane and he would explain
and be able to show them a map that would solve where the 200' of Arbor
Lane started.
Seahorse Association (represented by Jim Murdo, Pres. of the Assoc.,
5440 Three Points Blvd., Mound, MN.
Comments: No arguement about the work done. Arguem~nt is with the unit
charge of 3/4 unit per condominium. There are 160 families
in these units paying $194,OO0.OO of the cost of Three Points
Blvd. Front footage and square foot charges are alright. They
feel their unit charge should only be 40, 50 or 60% of the
total cost because of the way they use the property.
The Seahorse has filed a formal objection, in writing, to the unit charge.
140
September 30', 1981
Delmer Pferfer, 3137 Inverness Lane, Mound, MN.
Question: Does the Council fee that the deferred assessment earned
income amount may be changed?
Answer: No. The Council feels that $10,OO1.O0 is a fair figure.
Comment: Pferfer felt $11,0OO.00 would be a fairer figure.
Roy O'Donnell, 3207 Charles Lane, Mound, MN.
Comment: Streets were done over the past 3 or 4 years and he felt
all should have been assessed at one time to cut costs.
Answer: They could not do all streets at once so the worst streets
were done first. It is also not feasible, in the bonding
aspect, to handle the assessments in that manner.
Bob Gove, 5789 Elm Road, Mound, MN.
Question: Why were General Revenue Bonds not used so residents could take
this off their income tax?
Answer: The Council considered this, at the time, but overall it was
not a fair way to do it as some parcels would be paying almost
nothing and other parcels more than their share.
A1 Blackwell, 5057 Three Points Blvd., Mound, MN.
Comment: When he purchased this property, 3 years ago, a then member of
the City Council and the City Engineer assured him that there
would be no assessment on this road as it was already paved.
Question: Is there any proposed change in the assessment?
Answer: No proposed change as everybody in the City has been assessed
according to this formula.
Larry Oman, 4856 Hanover Road, Mound, MN.
Question: If construction corrections are not completed by the end of
this year, does he have any other way to get it done? Could
the City withhold payments to the contractor?
Answer: The City Staff will do everything in their power to rectify
any construction problems. Control over the contractors is
limited as by state legislation you can only withhold 5% and
the contractor can post things of value and collect all the
money. But the contractor must file a 1 year maintenance
bond with the City for the street improvements. The Council
recognizes i.ts responsibility to protect the people so that
the road will last by doing maintenance.
The Council acknowledges receipt of 6 written objections or problems from
the people.
The Mayor asked if there were anymore questions or comments. There were none.
The Mayor closed the Public Hearing at 9:05 P.M.
Charon moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 81-326 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL AS
PRESENTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER, CORRECTING THOSE
TECHNICAL ERRORS RECEIVED AND APPROVED BY THE
CITY STAFF - 1980-81 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
Roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
141
September 30, 1981
Polston moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION 81-327 RESOLUTION NOTING THAT THE 9 WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
ARE RECEIVED AND RECORDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
AND THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Councilmember Charon left the meeting at this point.
NEW STREET LIGHTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA
There was considerable discussion about the difference between the ITT light
and the McGraw Edison light. The contractor wants $78.00 extra per light
for the McGraw Edison light and wants to supply the ITT light for the bid
price. Councilmembers Polston, Swenson and Ulrick could not see putting
$78.00 per light into the McGraw Edison light when the ITT light is an
equal and the only difference is in shape.
Swenson moved and Ulrick seconded a motion to approve the ITT light,
Series 14 - 250 watt luminaire, brown color. The following voted in favor
thereof: Councilmembers Polston, Swenson and Ulrick. Mayor Lindlan
voted nay. Motion carried.
Mayor Lindlan noted that he voted nay because he did not want the ITT
light on the poles that were ordered.
Ulrick moved and Polston seconded a motion to adjourn at 9:35 P.M.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Fra~ Clark, Secretary
am, City Manager