Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-07 CC MINsi • 226 COUNCIL CHAMBER 7:30 P. M. Stillwater, Minnesota Octob er 7, 1980 REGULAR MEETING The meeting was called to order by President Junker. The Invocation was given by the City Clerk. Present: Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson, and Mayor Junker Absent: Councilman Powell Also Present: Finance Director /Coordinator, Kriesel; City Clerk, Schnell; City Attorney, Magnuson, Superintendent of Public Works, Shelton; Director of Parks & Mores ion, Blekum; Consulting Engineers, Elliott, Moore and Van Wormer; Building Official, Zepper, Planning Commission Chairman, Farrell Press: Stillwater Evening Gazette, Liberty Free Press - Edstrom WAVN - None Citizens: Brad MacDonald, Barbara Avise, Mr. & Mrs. James McKinney, David Johnson, Bob Thompson, Mr. & Mrs. Lawrence Bandeau, Lou Schley, Tom Hudson, Wilbur Munson, Jerry Mahoney, Mr. & Mrs. Harry Holmberg, Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Gill, John Ogren, Keith Carlson, Jim Gannon, Bill Hooley, Mike McGuire, Mr. & Mrs. Tom Anderson, Mr. & Mrs. Robert Hinz, Beth Schwintek, Dean Marlette, Richard Tuenge, Ray Dablow, Don Thompson, Michael Lyznysky(Country Tailor), Mr. Luka (Sinclair Co.), Steve Olin, Captain Griffith INDIVIDUALS & DELEGATIONS 1. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign the hard -shell plat of Lux's Meadowview Estates together with the Dedication of Covenants, easements and restrictions. (all in favor) 2. DENISE RONDEAD, (Mrs. Lawrence), 1121 North Second Street, appeared before the Council regarding the removal of a diseased elm tree by the City's contractor and asking that they not be charged with the removal of same since they were going to remove it themselves and use the wood to burn - further that the contractor did not notify them that they were coming and they were both at work when the tree was removed. The Council stated that they would have to pay for the removal of the tree and the matter was referred to Mr. Shelton and Mr. Magnuson and they were guaranteed to get the wood back. 3. CAPTAIN GRIFFITH appeared before the City Council with a proposal for four sixty foot dock sections and he would reserve the center dock for The Discovery - the other docks would provide a total of 240 feet of dockage space for transit boats. The City would be involved in it to the point where they would get reimbursement from the fact that boats that come in there they would be charged so much per foot - this would give the City reimbursement on the dockage space plus a reasonable fee for the maintenance - there would be no large cash layout for the City as he would finance the project himself, but he would want a portion of the transit dockage fees. It would be placed north of the bridge just below the pravillon- between there and the bridge. He would be the owner of the docks and maintain them and since this will benefit both him and the City he suggested that the insurance be split. MR. ELLIOTT asked if he had been in contact with the Corps of Engineers and he indicated that he has and he has permission to move the docks from the canal at the NSP plant to this location. Questions were asked about the collection of the fees and he stated that he would see to it that the dockage fees are collected with due authorization from the City of Stillwater. The Council directed that Captain Griffith submit a written proposal so that the City Attorney could review same so that action can be taken at the next Council meeting. h w • • e • • • October 7, 1980 4. STEVE OLIN, 1108 South First Street, appeared before the Council regarding a proposal that the City Attorney has to bring a lawsuit against him for things in his duplex on First Street and he .+as here to inform the Council that it has been done and he has complied with di, things except a heat duct which the Inspector has told him is a chimney which it is not - he disconnected the plastic plumbing which was taken out. MR. UPPER stated that Mr. Olin was informed that he was not take that pi i the building out - it has to be a licensed plumber unless you are occupyhg g stated that Mr. Olin states that this is a duplex, but there are three electrical boxes and three mail boxes that are getting mail. In his opinion it is a tri- plex - if it is not, it is in violation of Federal law of having a mailbox and there are not people there. He has no permits for the plumbing and no contact with Mr. Olin or contact with a plumber - no contact with an electrician since he has electrical violations as reported by the State Inspector. He cited from the State Building Codes that Mr. Olin is violating the code in repairing this home and he has worked with Mr. Olin for over three months and nothing has been done - he could ask him to vacate the premises until he complies with all of these codes. O MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Olin to work with the Building Inspector within the next two weeks and improve the building to the extent that the City will not have to take any action and MR. OLIN indicated that he would like to cooperate very much with the City Council and the Building Inspector. MAYOR JUNKER asked him to pull the proper permits and he will do the job according to the Building Inspector and the Code and the Council will receive a OM report by the next Council meeting. „ COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK asked Mr. Olin when he purchased the building and from whom and he replied in September of 1979 from Swager Bros. and when he purchased it, (t was in the process of being turned into a Tri -plex which he did not know if it was legal. He had information that James Menard had legitation to turn it into a tri -plex and he was turned down for a permit - the upstairs was completely finished and some of this work was done without a permit - it was shut down and no more has been done since that time. F1 PETITIONS From residents on West Hickory and North Fifth Street requesting the removal of the "NO PARKING" signs in this area. HARRY HOLMBERG, 308 West Hickory Street, who currently rents this property from Judd Orff Associates which is a duplex and up until the end of July there was a tenant who had only one car and at that time there was ample parking. The new tenants also have two cars which brings the total to four and there are other cars there. He submitted to the Council a copy of the letter that was sent in by Mr. Peterson asking for the erection of those signs and the Chief of Police's reommendation. MR. SHELTON felt that the signs could be removed as the party who caused the problem has moved out of the neighborhood. On motion of Councilman Harry Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a resolution was introduced "AUTHORIZIN' THE REMOVAL OF THE 'NO PARKING' SIGNS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HICKORY STREET JUST WEST OF NORTH FIFTH STREET ". AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilman Harry Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS -- Councilman Roger Peterson (Councilman Roger Peterson felt there is no potential off - street parking and this kept one side of the street open - he felt the problem still exists there) PUBLIC HEARINGS -- -This was the day and time for the public hearing on the reconsideration of the Special Use Permit for the Petroleum Facility at Croixwood Boulevard and County Road No. 5. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City, on October 2, 1980 and copies were mailed to the property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON asked why this issue was on the agenda again - it was voted down here two weeks ago and unless there is an entirely new proposition before us, it would seem to him that someone on the prevailing side of that vote (one of the "no" votes would have to ask for reconsideration), and MAYOR JUNKER stated that he did that. For one reason there would be a written agreement that there would be no retail stores in that area once the filling station is up - it will be strictly doctor's offices or offices of that nature and he talked to the City Attorney and he said that it would stand up no matter how long it takes or how many Councils come after us - it is perfectly legal to hold them for that stipulation. 22't, • • • • • 4 1 1 •428 October 7, 1980 DEAN MARLETTE, 2317 Hidden Valley Lane, suggested that they put the gas pumps between the Kinder Care and the Brooks Store to eliminate the safety hazard on that corner - as Roger Peterson said earlier this evening that he was concerned about the safety of the children on the east side of town - they are concerned about the safety of children on the west side of town. He asked that the Council consider this before making their decision. KEITH CARLSON, president of Brooks Superettes, stated that he did not know of a safer installation in the Twin City market for self- service gasoline - they are strictly addressing the situation with the children - they have made provisions on the side of the building for a concrete path with bicycle racks - where the gasoline island sits there is absolutely no need for the children to be out in that area with their bicycles - JOHN OGREN stated that if they move that service station down in front and away from that store so that any cars coming in have to turn away from the store and if they move that ste,ion over to the side that safety factor will be taken out - it detracts from it - this is as safe a place as this could be and that is why it is there - to further prevent any cars from going back and forth and creating what again was part of a problem on safety. MR. KEITH CARLSON showed the Council the various distances on their plans and there was considerable discussion with the Council on this plan. There are 64 feet from the building to the pumps - there is enough room for parking and by -pass lanes. MAYOR JUNKER asked about the berm in front of the building and as to whether or not that will have to be removed to put the islands in and he indicated that they would have to be cut into somewhat. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK AND MR. ZEPPER felt that the County should work with their architect to see just where the right -of -way is and the width of same and MR. CARLSON stated thst they had done a lot of checking on this and they were told that they are correct an it; if it does not meet that criteria,then they could not build there with the project as such. MAYOR JUNKER asked about the agreement that is proposed and MR. MAGNUSON stated that the stipulation would apply to any vacant land on the site that is not now developed. TOM ANDERSON, 2377 Hidden Valley Lane, stated that the location where his house is located was originally laid out for townhouses or duplexes or apartments and then there was a Commercial zone and it was his understanding that this would be restricted to one type of store and questioned that happened to that stipulation - why do we now have the Brooks Store and the Kinder Care some legal offices - what legally binds that property - asked about limitations that were put on it when it was changed to residential homes. MR. MAGNUSON replied that from his review of the records when Orrin Thompson was given approval from the FHA for the building of this project and approval of financ- ing they suggested that there be a mix of uses and suggested that it would be good planning to have a certain amount of commercial just adjacent to this residential property. It is also his understanding that it was thought on Thompson's part that Townhouses would not be marketable, so there was a change in the part of the addition that Mr. Anderson is in back to single family and the rezoned district to commercial. When the ordinance was prepared which zoned the parcel it said "CA- commercial district" with a further restriction that on this property there would be only a retail business of the corner store variety normally needed to serve the residents of the neighborhood. That whole language created one specific zoning classification for one parcel. We have a "CA Business District" in the town and it does not contain any of these restrictions. The Minnesota Statutes require that the require- ments of the particular districts be uniform; in other words we can't make a peculiar ordinance for one parcel of land which was attempted to do in that case. At the time both the City and Mr. Thompson felt that they were making an appeal and as it turns out the property has been transferred to new people down the line and the Council has changed - it just doesn't hold water any more and the zoning classifica- tion would not be sustained or at least that was his advice to the Council These are ridiculous requirements for this particular parcel. The agreement tonite is to limit the use of that one parcel with restricted covenants - that would be required of the land - it is not a zoning matter any more - it is a private contract that is made with the owner of the land and the people in the area and the City Council and everybody. He can't put that property to retail use - it is a different kind of a deal and this would hold up with the sale of the property and it binds the land forever. MR. CARLSON stated that this is an extension of the Brooks Superette business and it is not a new business - Brooks Hauser the owner of the property has to decide what to do with the balance of the property - the only alternative was to go through a court action which they do not want - they are expensive and they take a long time and they have come back with a concept for no more retail. r • • • • • —j • 1 • P5 • • ^ October 7, 1980 • MR. MARL'ETTED asked how many times that parcel of land can he sub- divided and MR. MAGNUSON stated that the remaining parcel is only one lot between Kinder Care and Brooks and it cannot be sub- divided below minimum lot sizes. MR. MARLETTE asked Mr. Carlson if they are talking about eliminating the retail business in the center of that property does that mean one large building with four dentists or doctors inside that roof or is that one doctor in one building on that piece of property. MR. CARLSON was unable to answer that question, but did not feel that was large enough for more than that one building. BETH SCHWINTEK, 2327 Hidden Valley Lane, asked about the liability for hospital bills for children that could get hit on that corner because of the increased traffic when they do to the school bus. MAYOR JUNKER asked if they were going to widen the entrance to the Brooks Superette and at this time they have no intention of doing that - he felt that it was plenty adequate the way it is now. MR. FARRELL asked if the Council was aware of the fact that the Planning Commission had denied this at their last meeting. MAYOR JUNKER asked the City Attorney if there could be a problem with the county right -of -way with the building of an island there and MR. MAGNUSON stated that it could be a very complciated question whether or not it is a fifty or sixty foot right -of -way. I P MR. OGREN stated that Mr. Swanson from the Washington County Highway Department who serves on the Planning Commission voted in favor of that plan, and MR. FARRELL stated that they were ten feet off and they have to move everything back ten feet and they agreed to it. MR. ZEPPER stated that if they do that they have only 15 feet between the parking space and the pumps and that is not enough room to back cars out into the flow of traffic. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON stated several weeks ago he voted in favor of this new revised plan on the basis that he thought the designers had done the best that they could to separate the potential dangers of the filling station from the existing building. Right now we are talking about some ten feet that we are missing - he was voting in terms of there being a sixty foot span from some place (he assumed from the edge of the sidewalk in front of the store to the island - not to the property line) and that was confirmed by Mr. Carlson. He asked about the distance from the west wdge of the is land to the property line and MR. CARLSON did not have the exact information but he stated that they are within the thirty foot setback. The Council members and the applicants discussed the location of various items on the plans as presented. The Mayor closed the hearing. MAYOR JUNKER stated that his thoughts in reconsidering was with the idea of eliminating the retail business that this would be completed except for probably a dentist or doctor's office and we could stipulate the amount of people that could be allowed in there - one building with possibly four offices - no retail business except for professional offices and MR. MAGNUSON felt that would be legally forceable. The covenant would run in favor of all of the residents in the area so that each party could enforce it by a private lawsuit against the V owners of the land. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON moved to issue a Special Use Permit for a petroleum facility at Croixwood Boulevard and County Road No. 5 with the provision that a covenant be signed by the property owners of the reamining parcel of property between the Kinder Care facility and the Brooks Superette and that it be restricted to the use of a professional building under one roof with on -site parking only - and the property lines in question between the plans the County be resolved. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON seconded the motion. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON had a real concern for the property lines here - he felt that there are some grey areas and unless this is completely clarified before any action is taken out there to turn one spade of dirt they are going to have the country property line clarified - the necessary breakpoint between County highway line and the City property - there must be at least a sixty foot space from the edge of the sidewalk to the edge of the gas pumps he strongly felt that this has to be researched and bring in Swanson and make sure that the property me lines are set - once dirt is broken there would be some problems, and that all of this is taken care prior to the issuance of the building permit. Ixi sn 6 22 • • • • a 1 _ • • 80 October 7, 1980 VOTE ON THE MOTION - Ayes -- Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson, Mayor Junker Nays -- Councilwoman Bodlovick (motion carried) THE MAYOR DECLARED A RECESS FROM 8:45 P. M. to 8:55 P.M. 2. This was the day and time for the public hearing on the proposed assessments for Local Improvement No. 166 - South Main Street Parking Lot. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on September 22, 1980 and copies were mailed to all property owners proposed to be assessed. The Mayor opened the hearing. GLEN VAN WORMER at three previous meetings presented different concepts for assessments for this parking lot. The concept that is being used is one that has been used in North St. Paul and White Bear Lake and the concept is based on the philosophy that the improvement of a parking area in a downtown is beneficial to all who have parking problems in that general area. It also states most benefits are accured by those properties that are directly adjacent and some benefits are accrued by all properties in the downtown general area because of the improvement of a general problem. If there is a lack of parking in one area that the demand for parking for the establishments then radiates out take parking places on the adjacent blocks which in essence creates and continues out until all of the parking needs are met. The cost is based on proximity and also on how people have attempted to live with or to offset the problem by supplying some of their own parking needs on their site. It is broken down into two portions - 807, of the cost would be ased on proximity to the parking area - 20% on the means that they have used to satisfy their parking demands - their contribution to overall problem on the lack of parking in Stillwater. The 807, is for proximity - they are assuming that the benefit will decrease apportionately with the distance from the parking facility. Anything on the top of the bluff, or north of Myrtle and west of Second Street - all the way to the river did not really benefit from this particular parking lot and would not be assessed. They tried to establish some ratio for that proximity and they came up with three rings so that they could assess it on a percentage basis; (1) 300 feet - 40 %; (2) 600 feet - 30%; (3) 900 feet- 20 %; (4) over 900 feet - 10 %. These are walking distances that people would normally take. They picked up the building sizes from the County and where there were dis- crepancies they went out and physically measured the buildings and they used only the first floor space since the floors have various intensity of development. These are all added together and made calculations so that a person's property within the first ring would pay a proportion of the swuare foot area of their building to the qquare foot area of all buildings. They also came up with a 207. contribution based on how they coped_ with or tried to correct the demand that they place on parking - they counted each of the private parking spaces that the properties have and compared this to the supply and demand and if they had adequate parking they got zero points - if the had no parking they got 10 points, if they had fifty percent of their parking demand met, they had approximately six points. In totalling up all the points that were assessed against the properties in this manner and then each one was assessed some points on a per point basis which was multiplied by the 207.. The person in the inner ring pays ten times what the person in the outer ring pays per square foot basis. He made reference to some of the estimate figures made in the past - it was estimated that Reed's Drug Store would be assessed approximately $4,183 and the assessment roll that they have prepared shows $3,680.00; for the Brick Alley they estimated $34,000 and they came in at $33,800 on the actuall assessed figures. RAYMOND DURBALA, owner of a downtown property and he also represents the Burlington Northern Railroad and he called the engineers regarding the projected income and the projected expenses for this lot and he could not provide any information for him - he also asked Mr. Kriesel and he could not provide any information and at this time he inquired if this information was available. What the estimated revenue will be per annum or per month and what the estimated annual expenses would be for maintain- ing the lot? MR. KRIESEL stated that this was hard to determine since when they went into the project itself that were would not be any use of the revenues derived from the parking lot - the thought was that the revenues would be put back into the Parking System Fund to provide for the maintenance of the parking lot and at this time he has not developed the numbers that are necessary to give an accurate projection - he has come up with some rough estimates anywhere from $3,500 to $7,000 and it is going to take a period of time to see how much it will actually be used - based on the averages derived from the other lots we are looking at anywhere from 22% of $74,000 of amximum revenues that could be derived or using the River Lot which might be a comparable lot that would be in the neighborhood of $14,000 to $15,000. In the two months that we have used this lot we have derived about 8 or 9% of the total maximum revenues. He did not feel that we really have enough figures or the type of figures that could be used for that type of projection. a SI • a • • • • • October 7, 1980 N r MR. DRUBALA questioned why they are planning to spread the entire assessment without making a projection such as this - if the City is going to provide the parking facilities - you do not know what the revenue is and you do not know what the expenses are but then you know what the cost of it is and you can spread that. He made a rought project - there are 96 meters and they are there for 12 hours per day - 6 days per week - 25c per hour and if they were full all day long, this would be $6.00 per day and projecting on 300 days per year, the total revenue that would be derived - 100% occupancy for 300 meter days would be $172,800. If you were to take a projection of 257, occupany for this lot, the porjected income would be $43,200 - $3,600 per month. He would also like to know what is the time period for the bonds initially set up for this. MR. RRIESEL stated that these are for ten years at 73/4% interest which is above the 6.43% which the City is paying. MR. DRUBALA stated that if you were to take a projection of these bonds to be paid off over a ten year period from the revenues from this parking lot with even a 20% occupancy there is sufficient funds to pay those bonds off through the revenue generated from these meters and not even a dollar from the pro- jected revenue toward the paying this off - you are throwing it all on to the business community downtown - and he did not feel that is fair - it is a big change from your pastirecedent. In 1964 the City had a parking project and at that time the City contributed 40% of the cost according to the records that he has and he felt that the projected revenues from these meters has to be substantial, and he did not feel that this Council should pass a resolution to specially assess the properties in downtown until such a time as they have had a full review of what the estimated income of this lot is and the estimated expenses. He requested that Mr. Thompson who is also a representative of Burlington Northern make a specific objection for the Bruling Northern's property. DON THOMPSON, representint Burling Northern, and he filed a protest to this project, as to the $5,011.54 which is being assessed to Hooley's Supermarket which he felt they have provided adequate parking and they have police their own lots on weekends. In 1964 they also get assessed for parking lots in that area $2,196 and what he wanted to know fif they go all the way up to the south end of town for this assessment. MR. KRIESEL stated that assessment roll included the Stillwater Motor Co. which was at the south end of town and also the Midland Coop was assessed to the far north end MR. THOMPSON stated that the parking lot west of Hooleys that the City owns and has the parking meters on it - some are four hours - some are ten hours - that parking lot can never be full if you are only getting $7,000 per year and if that is not full, why put one in three blocks away and assess them for it. MAYOR JUNKER stated that the City has no control as to how many cars park in there - the Council has discussed earlier that all of the revenue from the parking lot would go to the maintenance of it - for the first five or six years there should not be any maintenance unless there is a lot of vandalism and he did not feel that the Council would be against putting some of the money back from the revenues into the assessments - the only thing that most of them are against is taxing the people on the hill for the parking lot downtown. He did not feel that should be done that way - as far as the revenue coming from the parking lot, if the revenue shows $1,300 for the first two months and August is probably our peak month with the tourists coming into town and what it is going to be like in November and December and January we do not know. If he can guarantee that we will take in $40,000, we won't pass these assessments for a year and we will take the $40,000 from the parking lot and pay the first year's assessments. MR. THOMPSON stated that 40% of the assessments back in 1964 were $200,000- $121,000 of that project and that provided about 180 parking spaces. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that prior to that time there were no parking lots - there was on- street parking at that time the revenue derived from the on- street parking which was several thousand dollars that money went into the General Fund - we have no parking lots to maintain - we had nothing. The proposal to building parking lots started in about 1963 and at that time it was decided that the City would pick up a percentage but the revenues that were derived from the on- street parking was also dedicated so that money was taken out of the General Fund and dedicated for bond retirement and since 1969 the on- street parking has been used for bond retirement -prior to that the entire City benefited from it - they no longer get that. MR. THOMPSON asked that the City participate in this cost or if there was no need for the parking lot, why was it ever built. 231 • • • • • 232 • October 7, 1980 MAYOR JUNEER stated that they know that the assessments are high - the Adminis- trativ feels that parking and the City would contribute the revenue - he had no objection to that - the first payment would be $19,000 next year from the debt service - the Council has not ruled out picking up some of the assessments. MR. THOMPSON felt that Hooleys provide more than enough parking for their establishment, but if the Brick Alley that adjoins this parking is assessed $33,000 and Hooley's is assessed $5,000 there is no ten to one ratio there. MR. ELLIOTT stated with respect to the maintenance of the lot, the possible sealcoating once every five years, the annual snow removal, the lighting of the lot are elements to be considered as maintenance costs for the lot. MR. VAN WORMER stated that they did not do any revenue calculations - 25c per hour x 12 hours is $3.00 per day x 900 hours x 96 meters comes in roughly at $90,000 and not $182,000. MIKE LYNSKY, Main Street Square, did not feel that the potential revenue from the lot is not what they should be trying to impress each other - there appears to be a tremendous amount of potential revenue from that lot - there also appears sufficient offset who is MR. ELLIOTT replied that the abutting property and the corners are given a 65% credit of the long side of the property - 100% assessed back to the property owner, this can be abutting and non - abutting. LINDA HINES from John4 Bar filed an objection to the assessment - she felt that the little shops that have come in on the south end of town have created the parking problem that exists there today - she asked the Council if they feel this parking lot has relieved any of the parking problems downtown. MAYOR JUNRER felt that when you have that kind of a problem it has to be great for everybody downtown. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON felt that it has - some of the cars have moved out of the Auditorium Parking Lot - the two hour meters are open now where they have not been before - if you look back in the minutes several years ago, you will find that the retailers at that time were discussing the parking problem on the south end of town and that was before the creation of these small shops - at that time there was a parking problem -it may have been accelerated because of the little shops, but there was still a parking problem several years ago. MRS. HINES in the past few years the amount of tourist trade that has come into town, the 96 meters is not going to help it. She would rather see them put in a ramp - she would rather see her money go into a ramp - she does not mind putting money into downtown because she has a business there - she felt that it is hurting her business more than it is helping it. MR. ELLIOTT stated that the cost of a parking ramp would cost $3,750 per stall. MRS - HINES asked if there are other places that they are going to be able to make parking lots - is this all of the parking Stillwater is gains to get forever - she asked if in five years they are going to put in a ramp and they are going to be assessed again. She felt that the recenues should be used to offset some of these assessments. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that several years go there was a study con- ducted by Carl Dale indicating the number of parking spots that would be needed and even with the addition of the 96, it is 96 more than we had - with the addition of the 96 we are still short. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON was disturbed with the late presentation of the assess- ment rolls and there are property owners that do not know what their assessments are. Unfortunately the project is not totally completed as the lighting has to be done, so the delay in the final assessment rolls is pretty hard to live with considering that the Council has to act tonite if they are going to certify the assessment rolls to the County Auditor by the 10th, in order that they be on the 1981 tax rolls. He felt that the problem that we have is what is the income from these meters - he would hope that they would be higher than $7,000 or $8,000 per year and he would support the proposition that be applied against the cost of the lot. One of the problems is either guessing as to the amount that is going to come in or saying 'wait a year on the total process of assessing the property owners, get a year's experience on the income from the meters - the problem there is those who are going to be assessed if we did it next year, they are going to have to pay a substantial amount of interest which has to be added for the year that has past. This total would be about $14,000. Whether or not there is an alternative here of approving the assessment roll at this time subject to review one year hence after we have had the experience of income would be another proposal. (continued on page 233) 1 • • a • • • a p 1 • Pal • rool He is concerned that we are talking about something that has to be certified by the tenth - some do not even know what their costs are - the question is would they prefer to delay one whole year and then be faced with $14,000 added interest next year. Would it be better to assess or approve the roll now subject to a guaranteed review one year hence after we have had a year's experience with income. MR. THOMPSON asked the question as to whether or not the income from the lot would not possibly offset this $14,000 and the response was that it could very well be. MR. KRIESEL said that what Mr. Peterson is saying that if we do not adopt the assessment roll tonite we can by law charge capitalized interest from the date of the bond sale to the date the assessments are adopted. TED LUKA, 101 South Second Street (Sinclair Station) asked what kind of a walk - in traffic or anything is benefited by that service station. They provide the he parking on the service station for the service of the cars o- asked kedeiftt are not any special exceptions in which he could see any possible Happy Thomsen at all, is there anything that one can do to take that into consideration. (He was informed chat the assessment for that property is about $300.) MR. MAGNUSON stated that part of the difficulty as to how much of the assess- ment be borne by a parcel is deciding how much impact the use for which it is put at this particular moment should have on the total overall picture. In other words if a filling station should bear a zero assessment and then next year a retail establishment gets built on it, it is impossible to go the structure s of building is used s rather d than the lineal square footage that and asses footage of the land. MR. LUKA stated that Happy Thomsen did invest money of his own personally into the gravel that went to the parking lot that they have behind the filling station which provides parking for people to whom he leases it. They are looking to keeping the filling stations that they have in existence and continue to pay taxes to the City of Stillwater. MR. DURBULA stated that the Hooley building is approximately 20,000 square feet and they lease an additional 60,000 square feet for parking facilities - he asked how the engineer arrived at a special benefit to that property for a parking lot that is three blocks away for a grocery store. it is his under - is taking theomarketivaluenof l the tpropertytbeforehthe timprovementeand a then after the improvement and if they did not provide any additional service or space for this property which they have leased to Hooleys he did not see how they could spread a special benefit - he could see a general benefit to the community, but not a special benefit. MR. MAGNUSON stated that is true about market value being assessed rno now, butat looking at the Hooley parcel in particular he thought that the app the City would hire to resist the objection would say that under present cir- m loottsandcnowypossiblyttheapressure down there to alleviatedebecausertheopeopletwillthe ou have park on the other end and, therefore, the market value is established. LOU SCHLEY, a property owner and real estate broker, - asked the Council if they wanted to sell the e which parking lot which cost $200,000 at $80,000 per year income it doesn't sound like too bad an investment to her. ROBERT THOMPSON, Thompson Hardware, asked if th_s would be administered on the tax roll or are they going to do it on the bond issue and he was informed that it would be on the real estate taxes. RAY LOIDA asked if the one -way traffic is going to be taken away on Main Street and he was informed that would be next summer. He was informed that we are losing 18 meters and we have gained 96. WILLIAM HOOLEY, Hooley's TV, asked when they will know what their assessment is and he was told that he could have it at this time if he wishes. MR. ELLIOTT stated that the assessment rolls have been on file since Friday and the people who have called were given their assessments. BOB HINES asked when the project is suppose to be completed and he did not feel that it should be assessed until the whole project is finished. MR. ELLIOTT stated that we know what the final cost is because the remaining item is a unit price - there is a delay in the delivery of the light pole and the fixtures and it is not uncommon to assess the project before it is completed 02 because it does give the property owner who would want to pay it in cash of avoiding a whole year's interest in waiting - they completed the assessment (continued on page 234) 5 October 7, 1980 233 0 0 e • 1 • ¶ October 7, 1980 rolls so that theis year they would have the opportunity to pay it if they wish to - it would be wrong for them to sit back and work on it next winter and assess next year - there is an automatic $14,000 added to the assessment roll which would not be fair to the people who are going to be assessed. WILBUR MONSON, representing the Eagles, advised that they are going to contest the assessment to their property. MR. LOIDA felt that this benefits all of the people in the City and they should pay for this parking lot. MAYOR JUNKER felt that it was a benefit to the City Council that some of the revenue from the meters be used against the assessments - he personally did not feel that it should be spread to the taxpayers. He would be willing to let it go for a year. TOM HUDSON, did not feel that this was fair to him since he owns the building and has a lease and he cannot increase the rent for same. MR. LYNZSKY is personally opposed to the assessment only that there wasn't an awful lot of thought and consideration put into the potential revenue - he felt that there should be some numbers available for that potential revenue. Some kind of a study should have been done on the need for parking. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON stated that it was decided by this Council some months ago that the assessment in total would be against the property owners without regard to the income from the meters assuming that income was going to be necessary for maintenance and upkeep, etc. and we have come into a liytle different atmosphere here and they were not directed to make a detailed study on the potential income. MR. LYNZSKY did not feel that the Council should take action at this time until they have considered the matter of the revenue. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that the assessment rolls were prepared 100% on the cost - there was much talk given during the discussion of this parking lot over a period of close to two years about what would happen to the revenue- it was decided and he felt everyone was aware of the fact that there would be no credit given for the revenues - it is all to be used for the maintenance. It was at the Council's direction that the Engineer prepared it on the basis that he did. MAYOR JUNKER indicated that he opposed the parking lot from "day one ", but he did believe that the money was pledged from the merchants downtown for the parking lot in the amount of $70,000, at that time would have paid for the parking lot. He personally felt that the City took the land from a person for this purpose. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked Mr. Kriesel if at the present time where does the money come from to pay for the maintenanoeon the lot, on the on- street parking to replace the meters, plow, to do whatever, does it come out of the revenues of the meters or out of the General Fund? Basically all of the money has gone for debt retirement. MR. KRIESEL stated that the plowing and sanding and the collection of the meter monies repairing them on site comes out of the General Fund. The repairing of the meters comes out of the Parking System Fund. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that if the revenue generated far exceeds the assessments there will either be additional lots built as needed - improvements made - maintenance done from the revenues that are derived from the meters. There was discussion about the pros and cons of meters and the revenues that are obtained from them. MR. KRIESEL stated there was some discussion about what it would cost the City if they were to pick up 25% of the share of the assessments - on an average basis it would cost the City over a ten year period $7,200 - this would either be through a tax levy or through the revenues COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK stated that she would not object to picking up any part as long as it was generated from the revenue from that lot. MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Magnuson if the Council did not pass this assessment this evening, would it be a whole year before this assessment would go on the tax roll of the County. MR. MAGNUSON stated that we have until the 10th of October to certify - it is discretionary because of the additional $14,000 figure - you would have to spread the entire assessment again. iI t1 • • • • • 1 ■ • • • COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON asked about the procedure of certification • which Mr. Magnuson explained in detail at this time, and in this particular case the Council could certify the entire assessment as if you were assess- ing 100% but then you could provide an added provision that each year the yearly installment would be reduced by that amount of that it the proper certainty you derived from the parking yoyou - that have to 0% sa otherwise, if you said the income from the lot is not guaranteed and unless you would nick up the guaranteed amount from the General Fund you would have to leave that open �� and certify 8i7Rdve problems. have create some any y y nyroflt y if any of the properties are sold and they would not be treated alike. PO I , COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON felt that under a situation that we have before them with a sizable and replacement of meters should be derived from general revenue. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON disagreed because the cost of this lot for the production of 96 meters could less than some of the others per parking stall. MR. SHELTON quoted some figures on the other lots - $40,000 for 8 spaces and the other the land Stillwater at thaty the cost of time. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON felt that the maintenance should come out of the gross revenues - did not object to giving them credit for the net revenues, but he didn't feelathatothedresidentsion thethillkoutside. of the downtown esidents on the area should pay MAYOR JUMKER stated that he favored Councilman Harry Peterson's motion with one exception - that at the fifth year that if the parking of needs to be meters a and have to take aochance done out of the meters revenue from the parking damaged. andNsIeWwoul BODLOVICK felt that expenses should come out of the revenues and she would not t object to using what is left over for paying part of the assessments - the upkeep definitely has to come out of the revenue if There was discussion as to what should be charged against th hog revenues - specify the replacement of parking the lighting, S htin g and the City will take care of the plowing and the other things that are done anyway. The lots should absorb a part of that cost. COUNCILMAN ROGER pliied t to then motion assessmentsby the cost the cost ofreplacing destroyed revenues to be app or removed meters, the cost of maintaining the lighting system and other maintenance will be taken care of out of the General Fund. OUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK seconded the amendment. VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT -- Ayes -- Councilman Roger Peterson, Councilwoman Bodlovick, NAYS -- Councilman Harry Peterson (amendment carried) ABSTAINED - Mayor Junker VOTE ON THE MOTION- Ayes - -Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson and Roger Peterson Nays- -None (motion carried) Abstained - -Mayor Junker - -On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, a NOLe166uWITH was "ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR IMPROVEMENT LOT". Ayes -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson and Mayor Junker (see resolutions) SO Nays- -None bis October 7, 1980 THE MAYOR CLOSED THE HEARING. COUNCILMAN MARRY PETERSON moved that the City certify the assessment roll as it appears at 100% at this time so that it is in the hands of the County Auditor by October 10th and that the assessments next year at this time, prior to October 10th, be reduced in total by the total that has been ived through the parking meter et of eincome from that lot from October 1st of this year through September COUNCILMAN ROGER PERSON seconded the motion. ment0ofmetersEinpcasesof vandalism to theimeters, the themaintenance replace- poles, etc. 235 • • 1 • • 236 October 7, 1980 The following written objections were filed on this project: Robert Hinz, J. L. H., Inc. Harriet Johnson - Croixside Press Robert McGarry NEW BUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a resolution was introduced "ADOPTING THE TAX LEVY FOR 1981 ". AYES: Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson, and Mayor Junker Nays: None (see resolutions) 2. a resolution was "CHANGING seconded Bodlovick, LEVIES". Ayes -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson, and Mayor Junker Nays- -None (see resolutions) 3. r esolution was introduced Bodlovick, DIRECTING seconded THE PAYMENT OF un TH H E ElBIL L Sarry Peterson, a AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS- -None (see resolutions) ORDINANCES None RESOLUTIONS The following resolutions were read and on roll were unanimously adopted: 1. Adopting the Assessment Roll for Local Improfement No. 166 2. Adopting the Tax Levy for 1981. 3. Changing Certain Mandatory Levies 4. Removing "No Parking" on West Hickory Street 5. Directing the Payment of the Bills. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Councilman Harry Peterson, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, the meeting recessed at 10:40 P. M. until 7:00 P. M., y, October 8, 1980. Attest: City Clerk Mayor s RIR • • • • • 4