Loading...
10-22-1984 CC MIN ~ . . . REGULAR WEEKLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY MONDAY. OCTOBER 22. 1984 Members Present: Mayor Hinkle. Councilmembers Engstrom. Schuldt and Gunkel Members Absent: Councilmember Duitsman 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Hinkle. 2. Recognition of Martin Tracy COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 84-26. A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE SERVICES OF MARTIN TRACY TO THE CITY OF ELK RIVER. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. 3. Heavenly Hills Assessment Hearing Mayor Hinkle indicated that October 22nd is scheduled for the assessment hearing of the Heavenly Hills improvement project. Mayor Hinkle further indicated that Mr. John Gilbertson. engineer for Consulting Engineers Diversified. would review the project with the City Counicl. Mr. John Gilbertson indicated that the final costs on the improvement project and the cost proposed to be assessed were $137.558. Mr. Gilbertson indicated that the total cost of the project divided by the proposed 30 units for assessment purposes amounts to a cost per unit of $4.585.26. Mr. Gilbertson indicated that the large parcel of property in the Heavenly Hills Addition is assessed at 3.5 units and the small parcel of approximately 2~ acres adjoining the large parcel of property is assessed at .5 units. The balance of the properties in the Heavenly Hills Addition are each assessed equally at 1 unit. Mr. Gilbertson indicated that the assessment is proposed for a twenty-year payment at approximately 11 percent interest. Ms. Goulet indicated that she was the owner of the large parcel of property in the Heavenly Hills Addition and questioned if an environmental study was done prior to the Heavenly Hills improvement project. Ms. Goulet indicated that the only notice they received was the assessment hearing notice. The City Administrator indicated that Ms. Goulet indicated that the previous owner. Mr. Christian. did not provide the Goulets will all of the information regarding the Heavenly Hills improvement project. The City Administrator indicated that he had reviewed the improvement project with the Goulets last fall when they were arranging to buy the property from Mr. Christian. The City Administrator indicated that the project has evolved over a period of a couple of years. as there were many residents that wanted the improvement and many residents that were against the improvement project. The City Administrator indicated that in 1983. a petition was submitted to the City Council with approxiamtely 60 percent of the residents in the area in favor of the project. The City Administrator indicated that after considerable debate. the City Council requested a feasibility study to be done for the Heavenly Hills road improvement project. Ms. Goulet questioned the dedication of the roads in the Heavenly Hills project to the City of Elk River. The City Administrator indicated that the homeowners ~ . . City Council Minutes October 22, 1984 Page Two in the Heavenly Hills Addition gave easements to the City for the improvement project. The City Administrator indicated that one property owner would not give an easement and it required the City to purchase the easement necessary for the road improvement project. Ms. Georgia Goulet submitted a written objection to the assessment along jection forms signed by six other residents in the Heavenly Hills area. written objections were submitted from the floor. with ob- Five more Mr. David Sellergren, Attorney for the City, indicated that an assessment hearing is scheduled to allow the City Council to determine costs of an improvement project and assess those costs fairly and appropriately to the benefited properties. Mr. Sellergren indicated that the homeowners preserved their right to objection by submitted written notice of that objection at the assessment hearing. Mr. Sellergren indicated that the written objection allows the homeowner to contest the legality of the assessment in District Court if they so choose. Mr. Tim Ostrom indicated that the objection submitted by Mrs. Himes is invalid, as she does not own property in the Heavenly Hills Addition. Mr. Ostrom further in- dicated that he felt the fact that the City had to purchase an easement from Mr. Nystrom was unfair as the rest of the property owners in the addition voluntar- ily gave their easements. Discussion was carried on between the City Council and the residents in the Heavenly Hills area regarding legal costs and that if the assessments were contested in Court, the legal costs would be added to the cost of the project. Mr. Larry Sitts indicated that if a property owner protested the cost of the assessment, they would have to pay their own attorney as well as legal costs in- curred by the City, as the City's legal costs would be a cost to the project. The City Administrator indicated that the projected assessment costs do not in- clude a contingency for legal costs and further indicated that the City Council could add a contingency for legal costs to the total cost of the project prior to assessment. Ms. Rita Hirschey questioned the grade of the hill on Ulysses in the Heavenly Hills Addition. Mr. John Gilbertson, engineer from Consulting Engineers Diversified, indicated that the grade of the hill was within the City's ordinance and further indicated that the hill was shaped to allow for visability and safe driving. Discussion was carried on regarding curves within the project, signage and the construction of the shoulders. Ms. Kitty Omitt indicated that they had a washout problem in front of their home. Discussion was also carried on regarding the width of the road, the blacktop and the shoulders. Mr. Mike Goulet questioned the requirement of a 30 foot roadbed in the Heavenly Hills Addition and something less than that was required by the City on 211th Avenue. The City Administrator indicated that 211th was an extension off of an r . . . City Council Minutes October 22, 1984 Page Three existing gravel road abutted by agricultural land. The City Administrator indicated that the extension of 2llth Avenue is a dead-end and not a through street as the streets are designed in the Heavenly Hills Addition. The City Administrator further indicated that the streets in the Heavenly Hills Addition were private roads requiring substantial maintenance and a majority of the residents requested that the roads be upgraded and accepted by the City. General discussion was carried on regarding the Green Acres policy for the deferral of assessments. Ms. Omitt indicated that the current taxes on her property, the proposed assessment for the Heavenly Hills project, the proposed City facility referendum and the in- creased school levy was an extreme hardship for her. Mr. Jim Tralle indicated that the assessment of the road improvements in the Heavenly Hills Addition was a separate issue from cost of city services and school tax requirements. Discussion was carried on regarding the improvement in the project and the fact that homeowners can now sell their homes and the increased benefit to the property. Discussion was also carried on regarding the County Assessor's opinion regarding increased value in the property because of the road improvement. Mr. Pete Leinonen, Mr. Richard Frey and Mr. Jim Tralle all expressed their satisfaction with the road improvement and indicated that they would not object to the improvment assess- ment. Mr. Tralle indicated that he resents the fact that money that will be charged to the project will be spent for a lawsuit to bail certain individuals out of bank- ruptcy. Ms. Omitt indicated that they were protesting the assessment because they were un- happy with the culvert and its placement under the road in front of their property. Ms. Linda Washington, representing homeowner Bill Mitchell, indicated that Mr. Mitchell was unaware of the project as the public hearing notices were sent to the previous owner, Mr. Christian. Ms. Washington indicated that the only notice Mr. Mitchell received was the assessment hearing notice. Discussion was carried on regarding the five percent retainage on the contract until the project has been approved and accepted. The City Administrator indicated that the punch list could be dealt with prior to final payment and further indicated that there is a one-year warranty on the project. The City Administrator indicated that the problems as addressed can be dealt with and that the issue before the City Council is what amount of contingency should be included for legal challenges. The City Administrator indicated that the City's attorney estimated legal costs at approximately $3,000 per lawsuit. Discussion was carried on rega~ding adding an additional $30,000 for legal costs to the total cost of the project. Mayor Hinkle indicated that the City Council has tried to work with the people in the area to solve their problems of snow plowing and road maintenance. Mayor Hinkle indicated that prior to the improvment project, the roads were private City Council Minutes October 22, 1984 Page Four roads and therefore, building permits could not be issued. Mayor Hinkle indicated that more than half of the people in the Heavenly Hills Addition requested that the City Council authorize the improvment project and assess the costs. Mayor Hinkle further indicated that all property owners in the addition were assessed equally except for the Goulet property. Mayor Hinkle indicated that the City Council felt that the Goulet property should be assessed four units, as if the property were subdivided, approximately four lots would have access onto the street. Councilmember Gunkel indicated that from the beginning of the project, it has been proposed that the cost of the project would be divided equally among the property owners in the Heavenly Hills Addition with the exception that the Goulet property would be assessed four units, as their property could be subdivided into approximately 10 acre parcels. Councilmember Gunkel indicated that she worked with a committee of Heavenly,Hills residents reviewing various options and aiming ata total project cost of approximately $130,000 to $135,000. Councilmember Gun- kel indicated that th~ project proceeded in as cost-effective manner as possible. Councilmember Engstrom indicated that from the beginning of the project it was determined that the Goulet property should receive four unit assessments to be equitable with the rest of the project. Councilmember Engstrom further indicated that the City Council authorized the project based on a petition submitted to the City Council with a majority of residents in favor of the project. Councilmember Engstrom further indicated that the proposed assessment was fair and should be approved by the City. Councilmember Schuldt indicated that the City Council acted in good faith, author- izing the project to be completed and further indicated that he felt if people wanted to initiate legal action, not all citizens in the City of Elk River should be required to pay those legal costs and that the legal costs should be a part of the project. Councilmember Schuldt further indicated that he felt the $30,000 amount as suggested by the City Administrator should be included in the project cost as legal contingency. Mayor Hinkle indicated that he did not feel the City Council should include a $30,000 legal contingency in the improvement costs of the project. Mayor Hinkle indicated that he felt the City Council acted in good faith by authorizing the project and felt the residents were treated fairly by the proposed assessment. Mayor Hinkle further indicated that he felt the City Council was taking away the citizen's right to appeal by adding $30,000 to the cost of the project for legal contingencies. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT MOVED TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSMENT ROLL AS PRESENTED AND TO INCLUDE $30,000 FOR POSSIBLE LEGAL COSTS AND IF APPEALS HAVE NOT BEEN FILED IN COURT WITHIN THE THIRTY DAY PERIOD, THE CITY COUNCfL WOULD HOLD A SUPPLEMENTARY ASSESSMENT HEARING TO DELETE THE $30,000 HELD IN CONTINGENCY FOR LEGAL COSTS. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-1. MAYOR HINKLE OPPOSED. 4. Varner Administrative Subdivision Mayor Hinkle indicated that Mr. Donald Varner of 12728 217th Avenue N.W. has re- quested an administrative subdivision to divide a lot of approximately 5 to 6 acres r City Council Minutes October 22, 1984 Page Five . in size from a 33.5 acre parcel. Mayor Hinkle further indicated that because of City Council concerns regarding administrative subdivisions involving gravel roads and private roads, it is recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing until the October 29th City Council meeting. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE OCTOBER 29TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. General discussion was carried on between the City Administrator, the City Building and Zoning Administrator and the City Council regarding gravel roads, densi- ty on gravel roads and various ways those questions could be answered through ordinance amendments. Discussion was also carried on regarding the City's road standards. 5. Check Register ~UNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 22, 1984 CHECK REGISTER. COUN- CILMEMBER SCHULDT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. There being no further business, COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. . Respectfully submitted, GiyL 'i2Jtrt~jJ~ Phyll,.1.s Boedigheimer U City Clerk/Treasurer PB:dk