Loading...
04-04-1988 CC MIN e e e MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY MONDAY, APRIL 4, 1988 Members Present: Mayor Gunkel, Councilmembers Tralle, Holmgren, Dobel, and Schuldt Members Absent: None Staff Present: Pat Klaers, City Administrator; Terry Maurer, City Engineer; Greg Korstad, City Attorney 1. Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River City Council was called to order by Mayor Gunkel at 7:00 p.m. 2. Consideration of 4/4/88 City Council Agenda Item 3.2 was deleted from the agenda. Item 7A, Administrative Update was added to the agenda. COUNCILMEMBER DOBEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE 4/4/88 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AS AMENDED. COUNCILMEMBER TRALLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3.1. 3/21/88 City Council Minutes On item 7.2, Page 7, add the word "future" before nonresidential users. the words Page 7, Item 8 should state that the motion was seconded by "Councilmember Holmgren." 4. Open Mike No one was present for this item. 5.1. Sanitary Sewer/Main Street/Public Hearing Mayor Gunkel indicated that the Council is holding a Main Street supplemental public hearing for property owners who were not notified of the first public hearing on sanitary sewer improvements in the Main Street project. Mayor Gunkel indicated that the City Engineer was present and would review the project and answer any questions that arise. Mayor Gunkel opened the public hearing at this time. There being no one present for this issue, Mayor Gunkel closed the public hearing. Mayor Gunkel indicated the Council would dispense with the explanation of the sanitary sewer portion of the project due to the fact there were no citizens present for the public hearing. Mayor Gunkel then stated, that the City had received one letter of opposition of the future assessment from Judith and James Wilhelmy of 18613 Simonet Drive. Page 2 e City Council Meeting April 4. 1988 5.2. Central Business District Beautification Improvement Assessment Hearing Public Hearing Mayor Gunkel eXplained that the project is priced as low as possible and meets the objectives for beautification of the downtown area. She noted that the bids were open for the lighting aspect of the project and that most of the prices in the project were firm. Greg Korstad. City Attorney. explained the assessment hearing process. He noted that the purpose of the meeting is to receive input from the people proposed to be assessed for the beautification improvement. He noted that the City is proposing to assess the cost of the project on a per unit basis. He noted this is based on the City Council evaluation of the most fair way to proportion all of the costs to the properties benefited. He explained that all property owners should have been notified of the assessment and of the proposed assessment method and that the property owners should make their objections known to the City Council at this time. Mr. Korstad also explained that the lighting contract may not be awarded until the appeal period is expired. which is 30 days from the date of the assessment roll being adopted. e Terry Maurer. City Engineer. explained that the City has received the street lighting bids and also has received quotes on the other elements of the project. Mr. Maurer reviewed the cost of the project which is as follows: ITEM ASSESSED OTHER TOTAL COST Street Lighting $65.000 $35.000 $100.000 Trees -0- 18.300 18.300 Tree Grates 29.000 -0- 29.000 Trash Receptacles 11 . 500 -0- 11.500 Textured Sidewalk 11. 800 -0- 11.800 $117.300 $53.300 $170.600 Mr. Maurer eXplained that the method of assessment of a per unit basis is based on the input from the mock assessment hearing held January 21. 1988. He noted there is a total of 40 assessable units; 37 whole units to be assessed at a rate of $2.950 per parcel. and 6 half units to be assessed at a rate of $1.475 per parcel. Mr. Maurer noted that the interest is calculated at a rate of 10% but may be reduced when the bonds are sold. e Mayor Gunkel opened the public hearing at this time. Mr. Al Nadeau. property owner and business owner. presented a letter including a list of property owners wishing to appeal the assessment. the following names were included in the list: Page 3 City Council Minutes April 4, 1988 e Ronald Kuhn Harvey Wohlers Allen Nadeau Joseph Sipe Michael Rafferty Ronald Robeck Robert Dare Hetrick - Amoco R. A. Dorsey Dan Anderson (includes 4 parcels) Mayor Dale zone. Gunkel Johnson, indicated who is she had also received a notice of appeal from a residential property owner in the commercial Mr. Dan Anderson, property owner of 4 separate parcels of property, indicated that while he did sign the document objecting to the assessment, he was actually not opposed to the assessment or the project, but was opposed to the fact that the commercial properties west of Lowell were not included in the assessment. He indicated the properties west of Lowell had requested to become part of the commercial area and the Council extended the commercial area to accommodate the request. He indicated that the total commercial area should be given an opportunity to be part of the project and not to restrict the assessment to only a portion of the downtown area. e Dick Dorsey, property owner and business owner of Dick's Main Tap, indicated his opposition to the beautification project. He stated he was against a majority of the improvements but was in favor of adding trash receptacles to the downtown area. He stated he was also opposed to the method of assessment and felt the assessment should be determined by front footage. He stated this should be dealt with in the same method as sewer and street assessments. Steve Johnson, property owner and business owner of Johnson's Department Store, indicated his support for the project. He indicated that the City of Monticello is proposing the same type of project and the price is much higher than the City of Elk River is charging. Mr. Johnson stated that the. criteria for drawing new business to the community is the location, and the beautification of downtown will draw business to the downtown area. He also indicated that the assessment method is the best compromise for determining the assessment amount due per parcel of property. Mike Rafferty, property owner and business owner of Elk Chiropractic Office, indicated he was not totally opposed assessment, but that he was opposed to the method of assessment. River to the e Mr. Al Nadeau stated that the people signed the document opposing the assessment with the knowledge that the assessment per one full unit would be $3,750. He indicated that with the new figure of $2,950, there may be some people willing to withdraw their signature. rage 4 City Council Minutes April 4. 1988 e Bud Houlton. property owner. indicated his support for the project. He stated that creating an environment and atmosphere for the downtown area is very important. Mr. Houlton stated the First National Bank would be willing to contribute one extra unit ($3.750) towards the cost of the project. Duane Kropuenske. Senior Officer of the First National Bank. indicated he was in favor of the project. Mr. Kropuenske stated that by adding up the total assessment and dividing it out on a per month basis. the figure is somewhere around $30 to $40 per month. He indicated this is a relatively small price to pay to attract business to Elk River. Mr. Ron Kuhn. property and business owner. stated his opposition due to the fact that the commercial properties west of Lowell are not included in the assessment district and also that the properties east of his business will receive more benefit than his property. He indicated he would like to see the project vetoed until the Council has a chance to look at the benefitting properties and assess them according to benefit received. e Mike Rafferty proposed a different he indicated was a more fair method Council. He indicated that his burden of the large properties and of the smaller properties. This official City Council minutes. assessment method at this time which than that being proposed by the City method would increase the financial decrease the financial responsibility proposal is placed on record with the Mr. Jim Mulroy. business owner of Snyder Drug. indicated that he is in favor of the project. Mr. Rob VanVa1kenberg. property and business owner of three parcels. indicated he was in favor of the project. Counci1member Tra11e indicated that both the Governor's Design Team and the 2001 group have heavily encouraged the City to work on the downtown area. He indicated the downtown beautification would serve as a major focal part of the community and it would encourage retail growth and also encourage people to shop in the downtown area. Counci1member Tra11e stated that the front footage assessment method was unfair in that the large property owners do not receive much more benefit than the small property owners. He further indicated that the Council should possibly look at extending the assessment district to the commercial properties west of Lowell since these properties are within a commercially zoned area. Robert Dare. business owner and property owner. stated that he is not against the cost of the project but opposes the fact that the commercial properties west of Lowell Avenue are not included. e Elmer Anderson. property and business owner. thanked the Council for all they have done so far for the downtown beautification project. He indicated his support of the project. Mr. Keith Holme. business owner. indicated his support for the project. Page 5 City Council Minutes April 4. 1988 e Mr. Cliff Lundberg. business and property owner. and Chairman of the Downtown Committee. stated that the proposal before the Council and the residents is a very cost effective proposal and that it would possibly be more expensive if the project were delayed until a later date. He stated that he would like to see the Council order the project tonight so the electrical contractor can start work and not delay the project. Charles Christian. property owner and business owner. indicated his support for the project. There being no further comments from the public. Mayor Gunkel closed the public hearing. Mayor Gunkel indicated that there was a lot of discussion and thought process by the Council and Staff in determining the method of assessment and the area to be assessed. She indicated that the main element in this is timing and coordinating the lighting aspect of the downtown beautification project with the entire Main Street Project. She indicated that if the Council did choose to reconsider the method and area of assessment. the carefully planned timing schedule would no longer be valid. e Pat Klaers. City Administrator. informed the Council that if the assessment roll is adopted at this time. the people who have submitted letters of objection will have the right to appeal. however. there are additional steps to the appeal process which must be taken by these individuals. Councilmember Dobel indicated that if the Council does not go ahead with the project. valuable time from a number of people will have been lost. He stated that this project is needed and has been needed for a long time and if the opportunity is missed it may never present itself again. He indicated he was in favor of approving the project but would like to look again at the method of assessment. Mayor Gunkel indicated that the Council has tried everything possible to make the project acceptable. She stated that if property owners do appeal the project. the City would be in a defensible position regarding the amount and the method of assessment. She indicated that one of the reasons for keeping the assessment area east of Lowell was to keep the assessment at a defineable boundary. which is Lowell Avenue. She indicated she felt the Council is satisfying a majority of the people and that the project is very cost effective. Councilmember Holmgren indicated he was in favor of the project. however. would like to see the Council look at extending the assessment area to the commercial properties west of Lowell. e Mayor Gunkel indicated that if the Council were to look at possibly changing the assessment area. it would be a great inconvenience to the customers. She noted a lot of preliminary work has went into coordinating the project in order to keep a strict time schedule. She stated that the Council has already reviewed and determined the area to be assessed and method of assessment at a previous meeting. and stated e e e Page 6 City Council Minutes April 4. 1988 there is no reason to reconsider these elements as it will result in delaying the entire project. The City Administrator indicated that if the four or five commercial properties west of Lowell Avenue were added. it would add to the expense of the project and more than likely would not decrease the assessment amount to the property owners. Councilmember Tralle indicated that he agreed with the City Administrator and also with Mayor Gunkel in that changing the assessment district would delay the project. COUNCILMEMBER DOBEL MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 88-23. A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE MATTER OF THE DOWNTOWN BEAUTIFICATION IMPROVEMENTS OF 1987. COUNCILMEMBER TRALLE SECONDED THE MOTION. Councilmember Schuldt indicated that he has heard many indirect negative comments from the business people (tenants) regarding the downtown project. He stated he had hoped that the people would have come forward and personally voiced their concerns. but has not heard any first hand objections since the start of the project and noted that because of this he would be voting to order the improvement. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. OOUNCILMlMBER ADOPTING THE BEAUTIfICATION TRALLE MOVED '1'0 ADOPT RESOLUTION 88-24. A RESOLUTION FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE MATTER OF THE DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENTS. COUNCILMEMBER DOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION. Councilmember Tralle indicated that to reconsider the method or area of assessments would delay the project and would be too costly at this point. Councilmember Schuldt stated that street and sewer is based on a front footage basis. He noted that the method of assessment for the beautification items is a different matter as the items being assessed do not run by properties on a front foot basis. He noted that it is difficult to assess this in the same manner as the sewer and street improvements. He noted that because the improvements are of the nature they are. he is in favor of the method of assessment. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. COUNCILMIMB!R SCHULDT MOVED '1'0 ADOPT RESOLUTION 88-25. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FROM SPENSOR ELECTRIC AT A PRICE OF $73.243 AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONTRACT IN THE MATTER OF THE DOWNTOWN STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT OF 1988. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Page 7 e City Council Minutes April 4, 1988 Councilmember Tralle indicated that there has been a letter of objection submitted from Dale Johnson who owns residential property in the commercial area. Councilmember Tralle questioned whether there would be a chance of deferring the assessments until such time that the property becomes commercial. City Attorney, Greg Korstad, stated that the City is looking into deferrment of special assessments and that a policy will be drafted, therefore, allowing the deferrment of special assessments for certain circumstances. 5.3. Engineering Fee for Sewer Study e Mayor Gunkel indicated that costs incurred by the City Engineer for the preparation of three sewer studies exceeded the ceiling by $1,867. She indicated that the City Administrator is requesting the Council to pay the Engineers one-half ($934) of the overrun. Mayor Gunkel indicated that the ceiling was set without realizing the complexities of the project. She stated the studies were very important and something that should have been done a long time ago. She stated that she would like to see the Engineers reimbursed the full amount of the overrun. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT MOVED TO PAY THE CITY ENGINEER ONE-HALF OF THE OVERRUN INCURRED FOR THE SEWER REPORTS ($933). COUNCILMEMBER DOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION FAILED 2-3. MAYOR GUNKEL, COUNCILMEMBER TRALLE AND COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER TRALLE MOVED TO PAY THE CITY ENGINEER THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE OVERRUN INCURRED FOR THE SEWER REPORTS ($1,867). COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-2. COUNCILMEMBERS SCHULDT AND DOBEL OPPOSED. 5.4. Consideration of Adjustment to Sewer Availability Charge Mayor Gunkel stated that as a result of the discussion which took place at the 3/21/88 City Council meeting regarding the sewer availability charge, the Council is considering charging a $300 PRF (Plant Replacement Fee) in addition to the SAC (Sewer Availability Charge) for hook up to the City sewer. COUNCILMlMBER TRALLE MOVED CHARGING $1.000 TO THE SAC HOLMGREN SECONDED THE MOTION. TO INCREASE THE SAC CHARGE TO $1,300, FUND AND $300 TO THE PRF. COUNCILMEMBER THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 5.5. Subdivision Moratorium Extension e Mayor Gunkel eXplained that the City Council at the January 4, 1988, meeting adopted an ordinance calling for a moratorium on the subdivision and improvement of certain unsewered lands within the City. She noted that the Growth Management Plan Task Force has recommended that this moratorium be extended. City Council Minutes April 4, 1988 ri:lge 0 e The City Administrator explained that an extension of the moratQrium involves a revision to the ordinance and a public hearing notice pr1nted in the newspaper ten days prior to the public hearing date. He indicated these requirements would be met and the public hearing will be held on April 25, 1988. 5.6. Recreation Board Appointments Mayor Gunkel indicated that interviews for Recreation Board members have been held. She noted that the following people were interviewed for the positions: Charlie Blesener, Clete Litetzky, and Dave Anderson. Discussion was held regarding the three possible candidates. The City Administrator indicated that the City is removing two City employees from the Rec Board. He noted that Charlie Blesener is directly involved in receation with the School District and questioned whether the same situation would ~e created if he were on the Rec Board, as with the City Employees on the Rec Board. He further indicated that if Charlie is not appointed as a member he should be considered as an advisor to the Rec Board. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN MOVED TO APPOINT THE FOLLOWING PERSONS TO THE RECREATION BOARD: CLETB LIPETZKY - TWO YEAR TERM DAVB ANDERSON - THREE YEAR TERM BYRON HOUGHTELIN - THREE YEAR TERM MARILYN VANPATTEN - THREE YEAR TERM EXPIRES 1/ 1/ 90 EXPIRES 1/1/91 EXPIRES 1/1/91 EXPIRES 1/ 1/ 91 e COUNCILMlMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. OOfmCIL~MlIR TRALLI MOVED TO HOLD A JOINT CITY COUNCIL/RECREATION BOARD ftmlTINa ON TUISDAY. APRIL 12. 1988. AT THE ELK RIVER CITY HALL AT 7: 00 P.M. COUNCILMlMBER DOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 5.7. Mechanical Amusement Device License OOYNCltMWaIR TRALLI MOVED TO APPROVE A MECHANICAL AMUSEMENT DEVICE tICINliI1 'OR GARY DAIGTI TO OPERATE MECHANICAL AMUSEMENT DEVICES AT THE ILl( RIVIR THIATRI BUILDING. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE MOTION. TMI MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 5.8. Royal Oaks Ridge - Awarding of Bids OOUNCILM!MBER TRALLE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 88-26, A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONTRACT IN THE MATI'ER OF ROYAL OAKS RIDGE ADDITION IMPROVEMENT TO S & L EXCAVATING, lNC. THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, AT A PRICE OF $318,243.31 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THAT THE DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT AND PLAT BE SIGNED. 2. THAT THE FINAL PLAT BE RECORDED. 3. THAT A LETI'ER OF CREDIT BE PLACED WITH THE CITY OF ELK RIVER. e Page 9 City Council Minutes April 4. 1988 e COUNCILMEMBER DOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 6. Check Register COUNCILM!MBER DOBEt. MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGI STER. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0. 7. Other Business The City Administrator indicated that the Police Chief is requesting that no parking signs be placed from the Orono Softball complex west ,to Highway 10. He indicated that the request was due to highway safety concerns during the County Fair and softball tournaments. C{lYNCftlmQIUt, SCHULDT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE PLACEMENT OF NO PARKING SIGNS ON THE ROAD FROM THE ORONO SOFTBALL COMPLEX WEST TO HIGHWAY 10. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. e The City Administrator indicated that the Eagles Club is requesting a gambling renewal license to operate the activity of pull tabs at the Eagles Club. The Council took no action to deny this request. COUNCILMEMBER TRALLE MOVED TO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL ON MONDAY. MAY 9. 1988 AT 7 :30 P.M.. TO BE HELD AT CITY HALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING THE 1987 AUDIT. COUNCILMEMBER DOBEt SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 8. Adjournment There being no further business. COUNCILMEMBER TRALLE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL. COUNCILMEMBER DOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. The meeting of the Elk River City Council ended at 9:25 p.m. ~ Sandy Thackeray Deputy City Clerk e