Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-04-29 CC MIN Special Meetingr • • • F§i w COUNCIL CHAMBER Stillwater, Minnesota April 29, 1980 6:30 P. M. SPECIAL MEETING The meeting was called to order by President Junket. Present: Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Hari; Peterson, Roger Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junket Absent: None Also Present: Finance Director - Coordinator, Kriesel; City Clerk, Schnell; City Attorney, Magnuson; Superintendent of Public Works, Shelton; Bonding Consultant, Langness Press: Stillwater Gazette, Kevin Regan Citizens: Jmes Bill sb Pauley, Michael McGuire, N Sondra i Gozzi, Hastram, John Larson, Martin Anderson NELSON SCHOOL AGREEMENT MR. JAMES LAMMERS representing the Nelson School Partners, explained the changes in the Purchase Agreement, the Development Agreement and the Restrictive Covenants for the Nelson School Building. There will be personal notes in lieu of the Performance Bond. 'here were some questions raised about the variances that the Council had granted for this project and the possibility that at some point and time in the future that somebody could come in and request other variance.,, but MR. MAGNUSON felt that the Council would be bound these agreements and also that that Council could turn these variances and there would be a tough time in court and that the decision could not be overturned. In the agreement there is a variance from the Building Code for the handicapped. MR. or an ariancesdsince did and are could locked in. The Restrictive Covenants will be recorded with the deed when it is received from the City. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, the Council authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign the Purchase Agreement, Development Agreement and the Restrictive Covenants with the Nelson School Partners. (all in favor) COUNCILMAN POWELL LEFT THE MEETING AT THIS TIME. LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NO. 178. MR. KRIESEL informed the Council that he had received a letter from Kern- Pauley requesting the withdrawal of their petition for improvements on Curve Crest Boulevard and Tower Drive in the Stiillwater Industrial Park. (Third stage project for the Industrial Park) regarding Use problems nd SpecialaUsehPermitshforntheclndustrialnPark Powers There was discussion about the engineering costs that have been occurring with this that the date heldhuntilpayfuture costs and date. MR. PAULEY indicated that they have considerable assessments already levied out there and that they are being shut -off by the Joint Powers to what the land can be used for at this time and there is no sense to accruing any more costs. MR. TORSETH stated that they feel that they have uses for that property that are within the Zoning Ordinance and he made reference to Ray Martin's proposal which was turned down. He made reference to the County's Zoning Ordinance and cited certain portions of it and the problems that they are facing with it. They do feel that the plumbing operation would be within the zoning on the they trying toeliveiby find the property and property . 11 • J • • • • 1 • same. April 29, 1980 Questions were raised about the uses that should be permitted in a Light Industrial Zone and Mr. Pauley read from the Ordinance as to the permitted uses which included but not limited to were lumberyards, machine shops, products, assembly, sheet metal shops, plastic electronics, general vehicular repair, body works and painting, contractor shops and storage yards, fabri- cating, metal parts, etc. Questions were raised about medical and dental facilities and these are permitted on a Conditional Use Permit. The above uses comply with the zoning on the property when they purchased MR. MAGNUSON stated that when you turn down a request for a Special Use Permit there is a burden on the City to establish a valid reason for turning it down and show that it is not arbitrary. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council allowed the request of Kern- Pauley to with- draw their petition for the improvements on Curve Crest Blvd. and Tower Drive with the understanding that all costs accumulated to this point and time be paid for by the proposers. (all in favor) INDIVIDUALS & DELEGATIONS OPAL PETERSEN, 1109 South First Street, appeared before the City Council regard- ing the removal of elm trees in her boulevard by the City and the roots of these trees have uprooted the sidewalk and if someone gets hurt the City will have a lawsuit on their hands. She stated that she had talked to Jack Shelton several times about this. MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Magnuson if it was the City's responsibility to replace this sidewalk and MR. MAGNUSON responded that we have an obligation to keep the sidewalks free from unreasonable hazards. (Mr. Shelton was directed to get quotes for the repair of this sidewalk) BONDING FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS MR. KRIESEL presented to the Council data on the proposed bonding for local improvements and requested that they delete Local Improvement No. 178 from the list of improvements. The total cost of the parking lot with the storm sewer and the South Main Street Realignment is $416,076 (estimated) and the amount to be assessed is $282,618, and the State's share of Local Improvement No. 166 is $133,458. Jack Shelton made a survey of the downtown people as to the time of the assessment to be spread on this improvement and the response was 60% were in favor of a ten year bonding period and the other 40% were against a ten year because they did not know exactly how much they were going to bessessed. He had contacted a total of 27 parties and several of them indicated that they never received a notice of the improvement hearing. MR. KRIESEL stated that the total cost of the parking lot is $196,170 and that 100% of that is to be assessed (this is the estimated cost); the storm sewer was estimated at $54,000 of which $12,433 was going to be picked up by the State leaving $42,101 to be assessed; the Street realignment $165,372 which the state is going to pick up $121,025 leaving $44,437 making a grand total of $282,618 to be assessed. He stated that at the improvement hearing Mr. Van Wormer had indicated that the Brick Alley would be assessed approximately $40,000 and Reed's would be assessed approximately $4,000. This would be done on a radial assessment basis - it is very complicated and it is very difficult to come up without any- thing but a ballpark figure. SONDRA GOZZI stated that she had not received a notification and she has heard and seen various different figures for this improvement and asked that the projects be separated and they be given figures. MR. MAGNUSON stated that these figures are what it is going to cost and what has not been determined is how the assessment will be spread and who will pay what share and that does not have to be done until the assessment hearing takes place which is after all of the work has been done. Then the property owners can come to the assessment hearing and appeal it and then go to the District Court for the whole process. There are a lot of options for spreading this assessment - front foot on the streets, area assessment on the storm sewer radial assessment on the parking lot. s MI a • • • • • R 1 • April 29, 1980 1 131, • • • • so • hA te• SONDRA GOZZI stated that she did not want this project from the start and stated her reasons for same and if she had any say about where her tax dollars went she would like to have it go for something that would bear some revenue for this City - like a parking ramp - she is currently in the process of putting in her own parking lot which will house some 35 cars and asked if she would get credit for same and she was told that she would be given credit for same. She felt that the only one that would benefit is the one that is located adjacent to it and did not feel that it is a good entrance to the City unless it is really "decked up" and some of the old time style which makes Stillwater really great. She felt that people that will benefit will be those who work and go to the Brick Alley and felt that the City should go in there and grade it and put in some gravel. MAYOR JUNKER indicated that the City could not go in there and do any work because the property did not belong to the City. MR. MC GUIRE stated that he does not own it either and he plowed it once by accident and he got a call from Mr. Erickson threatening him because he had plowed the property - can't do anything with this lot. He did not accept her statement that the parking lot was just for the Brick Alley - he has a parking lot for about 60 cars on his property and the Freighthouse also has some private parking - he felt that there were as many people that go to Mrs. Gozzi's restaurant as go to the Brick Alley and they also park on his private property. MRS.GOZZI asked what would be taken into consideration when computing the assessments - whether they will take into consideration the fact that a per- centage of her restaurant is on take -outs, the number of employees, and when would that information be available. She also asked if they intend to put parking meters within this lot and questioned what they will be doing during the night time hours. She further complained about parking tickets. She was informed that there would be meters and they would be operating during the evening hours. There was discussion about parking on front of your business and she was informed that she should be parking at the four and ten hour meters and she felt thatthis information be given out by the City and that this was not her responsibility. MAYOR JUNKER explained that when Mr. Marshall was here, the Downtown Council worked out a proposal with him to have the merchants pay $600 each to have the meters removed and when the time came to put it into effect, they requested that the meters stay and that is why they are still there today. MR. KRIESEL indicated that he will talk to Mr. Elliott about having a "dry -run" on the assessments for the parking lot. Questions were raised about the notices that were sent for the improvement hearing and it was noted that they were mailed from the City Attorney's Office and the list of those names were referred to at this time. MR. MAGNUSON stated that the State Statutes provides that failure to get that mailed notice is the reason that the notice is published. There will be a notice sett to all those proposed to be assessed and there will be another publication and it will say that the proposed assessment roll is on file with the Clerk and the people can examine it too before so that they can prepare themselves for the hearing. The Council will arrive at a rational basis for spreading the assessments on those that benefit - it is done at the advice of the engineers. There was discussion about the length of the time for the bonds - Mr. Langness stated that it has historically been City policy to spread it over ten yarn and he did not want to get involved in making City policy - ten years would be consistent with the City's policy - there are going to be repairs and replace- ments that will have to be taken into account and they will have to be financed in some manner - ten years is a good time for parking lots - as far as market bonds go this could be done for as long as twenty years, but from a marketing standpoint the interest rate would be higher -- he did indicate that he would recommend a ten year bond sale and did not want to say that they could not go longer than that. MRS. GOZZI asked if they were firm on having parking meters in this lot and MR. MAGNUSON stated that there are two problems here - the City has parking meters in the other lots and in order to finance those parking meters they sold Revenue Bonds and that prcvides that they not provide free parking. She felt that other means of charging with an attendant or payint with an "arm- lock" pay when you leave would generate more revenue for the City. THE OWNER OF GTC stated that if he knew what his assessment was going to be possibly he would prefer ten years rather than 15 years and he was informed that he could pay it up earlier than the 15 years if he wanted to do that. a • • 1 J 4 * 414 • • April 29, 1980 MR. MC GUIRE stated that the assessment and payments for the Brick Alley are going to be very stiff and very difficult to make; however, if an expert advises him that the ten year is possibly the best one because of the interest rates and he would prefer to follow his advice and he gets extremely nervous when there is talk about fifteen year hond issues. MR. LANGNESS did not feel that fifteen years is unreasonable, but this is a policy decision of the Council if they want to deviate from previous councils - that would not be illegal - There were questions raised about setting the bonding for ten years and then set the assessments for fifteen years and MR. LANGNESS stated that the City would only get a portion of the bond money to make the bond payments and the City would have to subsidize the balance and the City can do this if they wish to - there would have to be a levy for that for five years. Another option is that the City could go for a fifteen year bond issue and then if the Council decided they wanted to sp sad the assessment over ten years, but that does not make any sense as you would be paying more interest. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson, the Council instructed the Bonding Con.•.nitant for Springsted, Inc. to sell the bonds over a ten year period. (all in favor) There was discussion on the projects that should be bonded for that Mr. Kriesel had on a list that he prepared for the Council. Mayor Junker felt that there should be an improvement hearing on the permanent pumping of Lily Lake so that the people know that the City is going to spend $122,136 for this project. MR. MAGNUSON indicated that this project could be assessed, but it would be rather difficult to do that. MR. KRIESEL stated that there is $310,629 on the books already for these projects and that will have to be levied next year and the other levies on the spread sheet for the next five years. MR. MAGNUSON stated that we might have to have a referendum on the bonds for the Lily Lake Control project and did not know it could be done under the charter without an assessment. The things that can be done without a referendum when there is no plan to assess - purchase, construct, extend or improve or maintain any public utility as provided by State law or connection there with . . . and he continued to recite from the City Charter on this matter. There would have to be a finding that it is a public utility. The Council has to determine if they can sell the bonds without having an assessment and the City can only do that if the Charter Commission would do it or if you have a referendum. The project could be assessed if you could prove benefits to the property. MR. LANGNESS stated that you have to look at the value of the property before the improvement goes in and the value after the improvement came in and he did not feel that they could assess the whole City on that basis. The City would benefit but the individual property owners other than those around the lake. If the Council could argue that this is a storm sewer, then it could be done. There was discussion as to whether or not this proejct should be done this year and MR. SHELTON felt that it would be best that it be done this year. Mr. Kriesel, Mr. Magnuson and Mr. Langness will work out the details of the bonding for the Lily Lake Contro Project, Local Improvement No. 181. The decision was to take the $6,700 for the I/I Study out of the SAC Refund money and not bond for same. MR. KRIESEL stated that he will have to make an analysis of the SAC refund monies and the expentitures that will come out of it. There was discussion on the possible appeals to thsse assessments for the parking lot as to benefit and the portion that might be thrown out in court would be the realignment of Main Street. MR. MAGNUSON Made mention of the adjustment that the City made on the assess- ments in the Industrial Park using State Municipal Aid Funds on the collector streets. It was concurred that the City would bond for Local Improvement Nos. 166, 169 and Local Improvement No. 181 if it can be worked out that it is legal. MR. LANGNESS scheduled the bond sale for May 29, 1980 and he will supply all of the information to the Council for the meeting on May 6th. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 P. M. Attest: .xl e ,G.R..,nCQ. _lefty Clerk Mayor it • e e • •