Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-21 CC MINst p • 7 246 COUNCIL CHAMBERS Stillwater, Minnesota REGULAR MEETING Press: None Citizens: None INDIVIDUALS & DELEGATIONS None PUBLIC SAFETY No report October 21, 1980 4:00 P. M. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Junker. Present: Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker Absent: None Also Present: Finance Director /Coordinator, Kriesel City Attorney, Magnuson City Clerk, Schnell Superintendent of Public Works - Shelton Public Safety Director - Abrahamson Parks & Recreation Director - Blekum Fire Chief - Chial Building Official - Zepper Consulting Engineers - Elliott and Moore COMMITTEE REPORTS FIRE CHIEF 1. MR. CHIAL discussed with the Council the internal roadways within the Charter Oaks Development and the proposed break -aways which he did not feel were satisfactory to bring the fire rigs in and out of the development, and they are going to have to back up the trucks to get out of there - there were questions as to where they would be piling the snow. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON AND COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK indicated that the plans that the Joint Powers approved had only the one break -away and not at the point shown on the current plans. MR. ZEPPER stated that they obtained their Building Permit with the understanding that the breakaway problem be resolved. There was discussion about putting the "speed bumps" and MR. ELLIOTT stated these present a potential liability for bicycles or small motor bikes can take off from them - they are suppose to be a cure-all, but they present liabilities to municipalities and private parties. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Building Inspector was instructed to inform the Charter Oaks Development that there will be no break -sways anywhere and that they include the proper fire lanes on these internal streets. (all in favor) There was discussion about the inspections of the utilities and the streets with- in the development and they are to be binformed that the City will be doing these inspections and there was further discussion about the width of these proposed streets. MR. ELLIOTT stated that if these are ever sold as condominiums then they would have to enter into a sub- division and they would have to put in the proper right - of -way and the City will not allow such sub - standard streets. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Building Inspector was instructed to inform the Charter Oaks Development that someone from the City will inspect the utilities and the street construction on the internal streets. (all in favor) (If there are not staff people available, then Short - Elliott- Hendrickson will take care of these inspections along with other work in the same area). e e • • Py Kr • • • PUBLIC WORKS 1. MR. SHELTON informed the Council that they have been pumping Lily Lake for two weeks and it has dropped one foot, six inches. 2. MR. SHELTON stated that he had a request for a street light on South Greeley Street by the four plexs and the Council took this request under advisement. 3. MR. SHELTON asked the Council for some direction on the sixteen existing businesses ON that he was asked to contact - he is to obtain the legals for these properties and find out from the owners what their intehtions are for the future of such properties 4. On Councilman Powell, seconded International Councilman of Milaca for aCouncil bid price of $3,000. (all in favor) BUILDING OFFICIAL No report PARKS AND RECREATION No report CONSULTING ENGINEER'S REPORT 1. This was the day and time for the bid opening for Local Improvement No. 185 - streets, sanitary sewers, watermain, storm sewers and miscellaneous construction for the Feely Plat. The advertisement for bids appeared in the Construction Bulletin and in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City, on September 26, 1980. The following bids were opened at 10:00 A. M. by the City Clerk, Schnell; Super- intendent pf Public Warts, Shelton; Finance Director /Coodinator, Kriesel; Consulting Engineer, Dick Moore: (Also present were about 10 to 15 bidders) Bid No. 1 Bid No. 2 Bid No. 3 Bid No. 4 Bid No. 5 Bid No. 6 Bid No. 7 October 21, 1980 Progressive Contracting Osseo, Minnesota Bid Bond Total Bid Kirkwold Construction Co. Dayton, Mn. Bid Bond Total Bid Julian M. Johnson Construction Co. Blaine, Mn. Bid Bond Total Bid Arcon Construction Co. Mora, Minnesota Bid Bond Total Bid Erwin Montgomery Construction Osseo, Mn. Bid Bond Total Bid R. W. Moore Construction Co. St. Paul, Minnesota Bid Bond Total Bid Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. Osseo, Mn. Bid Bond Total Bid $418,206.75 $406,352.75 $427,757.74 $376,255.78 $389,607.40 $393,076.20 $392,220.00 (continued on page 247) 247 • • • • • 1 • • - 48 1 Bid No. 8 Bid No. 9 Bid No. 10 Bid No. 11 Bid No. 1 Bid No. 2 Austin P. Keller St. Paul, Minnesota Bid Bond Total Bid Orfei & Sons, Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota Bid Bond Total Bid Julian M. Johnson Blaine, Mn. Bid Bond Total Bid T & S Excavation 2044 Chamber St. St. Paul Bid Bond Total Bid October 21, 1980 ACG Mechanical St. Paul, Minnesota Bid Bond Total Bid Forest Lake Contracting Forest Lake, Minnesota Bid Bond Total Bid $385,912.20 $423,564.15 $394,662.25 $397,646.40 The estimated cost of this improvement was $498,600.00. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a resolution was introduced "AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NO. 185 TO ARCON CONSTRUCTION CO. AT A BID PRICE OF $376,255.78 ". AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker NAYS- -None (see resolutions) MR. KRIESEL informed the Council that it will be about 31 days before the financing can be received on this project, but there will be other funds available to take care of the contractor's estimates. MR. ELLIOTT stated that there will be about $190,000 coming from Municipal State Aid and he will send in the form tomorrow. (See further action taken at the 7:30 P. M. meeting) 2. This was the day and time for the bid opening for Local Improvement No. 186 (NOrtT Center Street) bids appear d the Stillwater Evening 1 Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on 0 -tober 10, 1980 and in the Construction Bulletin. The following bids were opened at 1:00 P. M. by City Clerk, Schnell; Superin- tendent of Public Works, Shelton; and Consulting Engineer, Moore; (Mr. Darrell Troff also was in attendance.) $22,853.15 $22,879.54 The report costs on Center Street was $14,850. The bid would be $15,400 for Center Street and the Pine Tree Trail Estimate was about $6,000 and based on the bids it would be $7,453. The report costs do include engineering, fiscal and administration and these are just consturction costs. This will bring the total cost up to about $25.000 for this improvement. MR. ELLIOTT AND MRL KRIESEL will contact the parties that are to be assessed for Local Improvement No. 186 and report back at the 7:30 P. M. meeting. 3. There was discussion on the route that the pipe should take for the Pine Tree Trail Pond due to possible easements that would be required. The engineers suggested that they cut right into Pine Tree Trail and go right into the storm sewer - the dollars involved are not any greater as David Magnuson did not feel that he could get an easement across the one piece of property. fi • • v • • • • (October 21, 1980) MO MR. MAGNUSON explained the easement problems which would possibly break up a rubble wall at one location by going across the front yard of Richard A. Miller. MR. MOORE stated that they would have to negotiate with the contractor for the removal of the blacktop and the replacement of same and he did not feel that the cost would be too great. MR. ELLIOTT felt that it should be extended straight out. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council directed that the pipe be extended straight out to the street on Pine Tree Trail improvement. (all in favor) 4 There was some discussion about the depth of the pipe and other minor problems relating to the laying of the pipe for the pumping of Lily Lake. The contractor is doing a good job and they are progressing very well. 5. MR. ELLIOTT Informed the Council that the City could expect some objection to the assessments for the Charter Oaks Development. All of the areas within the heavy lines on the map are being assessed equally for sewer, water and streets. Their plans have, substanial sewer and water that they will be putting in and they are objecting to the equity - the question was why the City did not determine a set- back of about 300 feet and establish the area on that basis - th. ce were options to go when they reviewed the report - if Mr. Caldwell is relieved of some of his assessments, they will have to go against the Feely property. They knew this and they have the right to contest it. The other way of handling it, and they have not had time to analyze it, which was proposed by Caldwell - take a strip of 300 feet away from the street and assess only that strip for the street assessment at $6,000 per acre which is a fixed factor on all of the properties but assess the whole area for utilities. Then you change his level of assessment to possibly by $30,000 - it is probably dividing the 10 acre tract in half - there would be five acres not assessed at $6,000 per acre - he suggested this because it was his feeling that they have a case that could stand up under some scrutiny and if it went to a hearing, then the assessment roll would have to be adjusted and that would have to go against the Feely property . COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON asked if they could not some way change the assessment policy or was there anyway that they could give the Feely's a credit - he did not feel that Mr. Caldwell should get off the hook and pass it on to the Feelys. If we approve his development and then he changes his mind, then the City would have to change it. MR. ELLIOTT stated that he would not like to have the total area assessed, but only a 300 foot strip back from the street. There was discussion about putting in his streets internally and the Council was informed that these are not public right -of -ways. MR. MAGNUSON stated that one reason that we get by assessing the large parcels for the streets is because they were all under common ownership and they wanted to promote the development of the Industrial Park and when you get into a separate owner like this - let us say somebody that is not interested in having the street go by as in the case of this party - his argument is one that was decided in Supreme Court last year - the only benefit that can be assessed against a parcel is benefit for services that provide access to the lot - the collector benefit in this street is not something that you can access against the abutting owners be- cause the collector benefit covers a much larger area just as a sewer oversizing going by a person's house - that argument would be a very good one in this case if the guy went to court on it - he would have a good argument. MAYOR JUNKER asked if we could tell him that his assessment would be $30,000 and MR. ELLIOTT stated that we could ask for Municipal State Aid monies to cover that deficiency - that is why we deal with the street issue as the adjustment - that is a fixed issue against the Feely's and any needed extra money comes from State Aid - -he felt that would be the kind of the bottom of the barrel as that is City money, too. COUNCILMAN POWELL felt that they will have to look it square in the eye and say that the Feelys are going to have to pay more. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON felt that this guy is developing ten acres the way that he wants to develop it and he is developing this into low rent housing to benefit him - the street in effect does not benefit his housing area that much but it still has to be built in order to complete the whole project. MR. ELLIOTT reminded the Council that why they really included the total area is that he talked a little bit about Orleans Street going in the future - it would not cover the total limit of the property but would come back to some point in here, but they would have no access to that street and he felt that there is no way we would ever assess them for a piece of Orleans Street because if you cannot get on to it, (continued on page 250) 249 2 0 0 • • 50 October 21, 1980 - continued you cannot assess them for it - the thought was to include them now and they will have shared in their total area in an assessment - but they do not see it through our eyes. They are putting together their financing and they feel pretty crowded on this assessment. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that if we do it and we get stuck and the assessments are already made where does the money come from. MR. ELLIOTT stated that it would have to be re- assessed and it would basically be spread against all of the properties - the unit would go up - Feely's would pay more, but they likewise would pay more on that portion which is considered assess - ible - but you never tell the court to say that utilities and street should only be assessed to a 300 foot strip - what he is willing to do, is put the utilities against the whole parcel but the street just against the 300 foot strip because that is a fixed unit of assessment and would not affect the Feelys and he could have peace with them at the same time we are doing it. It might be a reasonable way to go and we have that opportunity befere we do to court on this MR. MAGNUSON stated that the dangerous thing about this is that you would not be able to stick it onto Feely as the judge would say that there is a general benefit here and the entire community would be paying for it out of the General Fund. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that if we know now and we re -work the formula so much for the whole area - Feely pays a little more and they pay a little more on the part that will be assessed. MR. ELLIOTT pointed out possible problems with what he has suggested - they have not had a chance to analyze the dollars on this, but they cannot get any more Municipal State Aid dollars on this project then the cost of the State Aid Street from certain given points on the map - there may be a dollar deficiency in this whole plan, but he will go through and make the calculations and report at the next meeting as Mr. Caldwell will be here this evening. COUNCILMAN POWELL felt that if we divide it the way that Mr. Elliott recommended he did not feel that the Feelys are going to get assessed as badly as it was with the original estimate. MR. ELLIOTT stated that at the Improvement Hearing that the assessments for sanitary sewer would be $2,337 per acre - right now it is $1,421 based on the bids and in- cludes the engineering and everything; the watermain would cost $3,508 per acre and the bid is $2,433 and this might be as great a difference as it might seem CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT MR. MAGNUSON discussed with the Council the David Johnson property - the whole proposal should be put in writing so that the matter could be submitted to the Dorsey firm for their analysis as they are the bond counsel for the City. The proposal calls for Mr. Johnson personally guaranteeing this project at the tune 110% of the total cost - the land would be assessed 100% of the cost - money would be collected by the trustee who pay the bonds off and who would monitor on a yearly basis a financial statement that would constitute these principals, both Johnson and a number of other people - when the security according to his CPA monitors his financial statement gets below 110% of the amount of the project, then we would not be able to release any property unless they would pay 125% on each lot. With the security there we would keep the money from the prepaid assessments in an account (the trustee would) and then when the money builds up, if there were more money in there than would be paid on the bonds, the developer would get the benefits - this would be the same type of thing that was talked about before, but with a lot more security. The Dorsey firm will be representing both the developer and the City and he frankly does not feel comfortable with this situation. They are the bond counsel and they are going to have to review the issue whether it it passed or not - Ron Langness has given him the name of another man from a big investment firm that is also an expert in this area and he has talked to him about it and there are a number of delicate problems. He is unable to give an opinion on the problems until he sees the whole proposal and he suggested that what to do is tell Dorseys that we want an opinion on this financial picture of the Johnson proposal - that we do not want just a short opinion, we want a memorandum of analysis and we want to have someone to review it for us. The problems that we get into are like this according to the investment firm. The rule in the bond law states that if you borrow more on a project than you need, or if you borrow monies on a ten year bond issue and you know that it is going to be paid back in three years, you have that money to use over the full ten - the IRS invokes this - you are using this tax exempt money for an income producing thing and there is no coveted purpose in it - you not only penalize the City and jeopardize your bond issues in the future - you also penalize the bond holders because their tax exempt income is no longer tax exempt. The bonds usually also provide that if there is declared to be arbitrage, or if there is a problem with them - instead of having a 7% municipal bond you might have 14% bond and that case the developers would be able to cash over on us. These (continued on page 251) • • • • • • t 7 1 • - 251` October 21, 1980 • • CITY COORDINATOR'S REPORT 1. MR. KRIESEL informed the Council that Lori Clayton will be unable to meet with the Council tomorrow evening and he requested that they have a Budget Meeting with the Department Heads and this was agreeable to the Council. 2. There was discussion on publicity for the issue of the Liquor Referendum which will appear on the November 4th ballot which will grant the Council permission Y to issue three additional licenses. He will check out the cost of a paid ad and also the cost of sending out some type of a flyer to the citizens. 3. MR. KRIESEL informed the Council that Mr. Magnuson has prepared a release on the Van Meier property and this was reviewed at this time - this will protect the City from further liability on this storm sewer situation. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council authorized the City Attorney or Mr. Shelton to present this release to Mrs. Van Meier for her signature and authorize the payment of $301.28 to Mrs. Van Meier for her claim (all in favor) 4. MR. chen byEDarrell the of with some Dumpsit Inter- on Dumpsite - there are a lot of calls regarding motor bikes in that area. He has contacted the property owner, Gordy Larson, and he asked the City Attorney if the City signs it, would the City have to have the property owner sign a complaint in order to issue tickets on private property. MR. MAGNUSON stated that you would have to tell the person to get off of your property before there is a crime committed in order to be a tresspass - the land owner should be sent a letter that this is a nuisance to the other property owners. 5. MR. KRIESEL reported to the Council on the Cable T. V. Advisory Committee and that they will come to the Council in December for a "needs assessment report" and to IJ ask the Councils to proceed with the project and to approve the hiring of a consult- ant to help the committee prepare the IFA invitation for applications and to review rw the IFA once the applications are received - should be ready to go ahead with the bids in January or February. The Joint Powers body will administer the franchise. 1 problems are sensitive and are new - the experts in the bond field don't have a ready answer for us - they don't know - this is kind of a "blue" area. He feels that it would be wise to get Dorsey's analysis and then have somebody else look at it too. The people who write the bond'pink" are the people who really make the bucks - it seems to him that the Dorsey firm would be encourag- ing this since they see a real big piece of business that they would make - he did not feel that thit was wrong as he feels that everyone is entitled to stir it up - but he would feel a lot more comfortable if someone else would look at it. The Council agreed with Mr. Magnuson's request on this matter and he will secure the proposal in writing from Mr. Johnson and there will be an analysis from the Dorsey firm and he would get an opinion from another investment firm. 2. MR. MAGNUSON distributed to the Council copies of an Ordinance Establishing Building Moving Regulations and also on Mechancial Permit fees. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS 1. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON brought up the matter of the Edgewood Ditch and Mr. Elliott reported that the project was finished last Friday in the rain. He told Scott Nelson that if he has any influence at all with the neighbors so that they discontinue putting their clippings into the ditch. MR. SHELTON requested that the Council go out and take a look at it so when these people come in here a year from now, at least the Council knows that it has been done - it is a beautiful job. 2. The matter of allowing people to burn their leaves was brought up and Mr. Magnuson will check this out in the State law and report back to the Council. The Mayor recessed the meeting at 5:30 P. M. until 7:30 P. M. � S) Attest: Ci6ly Clerk Mayor • a • 1 7 • (§52 • COUNCIL CHAMBERS Stillwater, Minnesota October 21, 1980 7:30 P. M. RECESSED MEETING Mayor Junker reconvened the meeting at 7:30 P. M. The Invocation was given by the City Clerk. Present: Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker Absent: None Also Present: Finance Director /Coordinator, Kriesel; City Clerk, Schnell; City Attorney, Magnuson; Superintendent of Public Works, Shelton; Consulting Engineers, Moore and Elliott Press: Free Press - Julie Edstrom Citizens: Robert Rygg, Brad MacDonald, Sally Evert, Barbara Avise, George Kutz, Bob Fors, John Caldwell, Mr. Terrance Needham; Three bidders for the loader. INDIVIDUALS & DELEGATIONS 1. ROB ERT RYGG, Washington County Civil Defense Director, presented to the City a check in the amount of $54,899 which represented the cooperative effort at the Federal level, the State and the County Civil Defense Office and City Coordinator, Nile Kriesel and Jack Shelton - it is the final payment on a storm damage in the spring of 1978. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, that a letter be sent to the County Board thanking the County Civil Defense Director for his cooperation in this effort. (all in favor) 2. A representative from Darius & Associates, the new owners of the Grand Garage and Gallery appeared before the Council requesting a variance from the Sign Ordinance - he presented photos of the sign in question which will be attached to the corner of the building and would be installed by a professional and they would provide any necessary insurance that the City would designate. The sign is 5 feet without the ornamental iron work. This sign would han four feet beyond the 12 inches stipulated in the ordinance - there is nothing designated what that building is coming to town. They will have a parking lot at the rear of the building and this would also be designated on that sign. MR. MAGNUSON reatded the Council that about a month ago the Council directed that he write a letter to Mad Capper because they had a sign that was in violation of the ordinance - he did that and the owner responded by saying that the Elks and the Senior Citizens, the Ben Franklin Store and a number of other people also have non - conforming signs and he asked him to come to the City Council and explain his problem - he feels it is a small sign and it is conspicious as it tells people about his business and it is not creating any problem and neither are any of the other signs in downtown. He felt that what the Council has to decide is if the Ordinance is serving any useful purpose. There was discussion about allowing this sign and then review the ordinance and amend it to conform with the whole new character of the downtown area and restoration and that the signs would be appropriate and the safety could be done by inspection of the sign. COUNCILMAN ROGER PERERSON felt at the signs add to the downtown - the Mad Capper is in violation and felt that Ie were to come in for a variance that there would be many people opposed to it. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that the sign ordinance was passed in either 1947 or 1948 - the reason it was done because it was felt that it narrowed the Main Street since some of them stuck out six feet and they were mostly beer signs and they were not very attractive. Then when the canopy was put on the west side of Main Street they were allowed to put identification signs underneath it. If the Council does allow this one, you are going to have to allow any and all and he felt that the street did improve without the signs - he would like to see them put this sign up so that it was on their own property. When the Mad Capper put up their sign there was dissatisfaction with that and he received a complaint and he brought it to the Council. MR. MAGNUSON stated that possibly he could get some ordinances from other communities and submit them for the Council's review - he felt that the safety factor is one thing and the aesthetic factor is another thing and the zoning porer has grown over the past few years there might be such a thing that aesthetic things as to whether or not one should be allowed. Mat it X01 • • s • • 1 • 7 • 'PS October 21, 198t' 253 COUNCILMAN POWELL suggested that if that is the way that the Council wishes to go that they have a meeting with the Downtown Council to see what their feeling is - they are the business men down there and if they want signs then that would reason enough to do it. To legislate them back in without their consideration is not right either. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON felt that they could grant permission through a variance for the use of the sign - by doing that you are aware of each and every sign that goes up there and you have control of the type of signs and if individual businesses want a sign, let them request a Special Use Permit or variance. MR. MAGNUSON stated that there is no provision for a Special Use Permit but in any ordinance they can request a variance from it - without any standards it is going to be hard to enforce, and you are going to have a tough time to say "no ". There was discussion about the signs hanging beyond the curb line as they would present problems for trucks and the consideration would have to be how far out over the sidewalcsigns could hang which will take 12 feet off the width of the street from building to building. A COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON felt that we are dealing with an establishment that has brought a lot of class to an area of town that was rather run down not too many years ago and if we can in any way enhance the popularity of the downtown, particularly the Grand Garage and Gallery and these other businesses by allowing attractive signs that fit the decor of the downtown that we should grant variances wherever possible. If one came in that was "garrish" and did not fit the down- town, they would have every right to refuse to grant a variance and let them take the City to court and challenge the right to deny it. On motion of Councilman Harry Peterson, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, the Council granted a variance in this particular instance with the idea that the City Attorney look at the ordinance to see if there is something that should be included in it to give the Council greater control over future variance requests. AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson NAYS -- Councilman Powell 3. BOB FORS, appeared before the Council requesting a lot split on Outlot C of the Croixwood Sixth Addition for the Kinder Care building project. MR. MAGNUSON stated that this is a minor subdivision - there is a building on Lot A and there is a building to be put on Lot C and the conditions are well defined and he felt that it would ffect anyone directly to allow this minor subdivision. Lot B is the one that will have the covenant on it - there will be no parcel the provisions forth on Tracts Bnthenharerre dimensions each against that property. This Outlot C has been assessed under Local Improvement No. 173 which is against the entire tract and in the motion there should be a provision for the apportionment of the assessment against each lot based on the square footage of each lot. The assessment is being appealed and he did not feel that this minor subdivison would hurt the appeal in any way. The assessments are a separate matter entirely. MR. ELLIOTT stated that he had advised them that service could not be provided hen to all of the properties off Croixwood Blvd. and that is why there is a benefit to this property. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Harry Peterson, the Council approved the request for the minor subdivision of Outlot C of the Croixwood Sixth Addition as requested by J. Brooks Hauser for the Kinder Care. (Case No. A -16) (all in favor) 4. MR. GEORGE KUTZ appeared before the City Council regarding conditions that exist on Lily Lake and that certain property owners will not allow people to fish from their shorelines. He also felt that the people on Lily Lake should be assessed for the pumping of the lake. 5. MR. JOHN CALDWELL, representing Orville Madsen Construction appeared before the Council regarding the Charter Oaks project on the Feely property. He informed the Council that he purchased the property as of noon yesterday (October 20, 1980). He obtained the Building Permit also and paid all of the necessary fees connected with this permit Hopefully they will start construction this week, and the project is going forward. A number of weeks ago there was an assessment hearing with the Feelys who were the record owners of the property at that time even though they were beneficial owners of a portion of the property and at that time the assessment policy was discussed and he felt that it has created an undue hardship on the particular parcel that they are purchasing for several reasons. The first reason in their contract with the Feelys they expressly recognized the fact that Curve Crest mw Blvd. was going in and they would pay their fair share for the improvement of that boulevard and they originally drafted the contracts stating thst they would pay for one -half of the cost of Curve Crest Blvd., plus all improvements going in Curve Crest Blvd. for the frontage that they sha with ithdthe he rest of page 254the Feely Plat. • `1./' • • • • • 1 7 • • 7 254 October 21, 1980 In other words that they would split fifty /fifty with them on that. At the time their attorney expressed a concern for area type assessments, such as for the holding pond and other things that involved this property and other property and he modified the agreements stating except all assessments on a frontage basis, except for those assessments which are normally done on an area basis but not stating that a specifically intended to mean area wide rather than just spare footage area. So by taking the policy with the Feelys that the City is assess- ing on a square footage basis essentially changed the agreement with the Feely's without them being there - this sort of puts them in a bind - he thought that they had an understanding that they would share this on a front footage basis. The reason that they have chosen to share it on a front footage basis is that they recognize the fact they were going some average of 600/700 feet deep off of Curve Crest Blvd. and the property being 834 acres assessed on the same per acre basis as one acre industrial lots certainly does not have nearly the benefit to it in relationship to the assessments being assessed. Most engineers and most Councils prefer to go to some area formulas for the assessments is the problem with corner lots - you take a half acre corner lot and you assess them on a front footage basis and you windup that the City owns the lot because it is not worth what the assessments are placed against it because of the severe frontage. If all lots are the same size in a development, then the fair way to do it is on an area basis, they are all roughly same the same depth, but when y.,u get drastic difference in depth from one lot to another, many municipalities use a policy in fact he understands in the industrial Park the City used a similar policy on a couple of occasions where the streets and improvements were assessed for a depth back of 300 feet feeling that anything over 300 feet you have to provide your own private utilities and streets to get further than 300 feet and it tends to be a kind of a compromise position between the street front footage assessment and the straight area assessment - he would like very much at some future date to meet with the Council and with the engineer to discuss it because at the level the assessments are at right now or proposed, and the policy that is being proposed would actually force them to go through formal appellate procedures and he felt very seriously that they could win those on appeal and he did not want to go through that mess. He proceeded to indicate the location of their property on the blackboard in relation to Curve Crest Blvd. - they have about 600 feet of frontage on Curve Crest Blvd. and he further indicated the location of their own private road system with a 150 radius cul -de -sac on one of these roads. If the improvement of Orleans Street had also gone through (which everyone recognizes that is not practical because of the grade) - if Orleans had gone in and the other gone in, then it would be fair to assess the $6,000 per acre for the whole thing because that way they could have eliminated a particular hookup coming directly out to ORLEANS and they could have eliminated almost 600 lineal feet of curbing for the turn - around and more curbing than the City put in on the access and they would have come out right to Orleans Street and then they would have benefited from street improvements from 300 feet on an average from both ways - what encouraged the Council to think about and possibly meet in the future on is changing the assessment policies to be a 300 foot depth on an area basis for the street. If the City would be willing to do that on the street, they would not quibble about the sewer and water. They are providing almost a quarter of a million dollars of on -site laterals, watermains, sanitary sewer and streets within the 83/4 acres and he felt that they were being nailed both ways - having to provide substantial private street improvements at two locations (as indicated on the drawing) because the public street is not going in there. Granted they probably will never get assessed only for a given point to another point because everyone realizes that Orleans Street won't go in, but they won't need to be assessed because they would have already spent the money by City standards to do the cul -de -sac and the connecting links here. He felt that they were getting charged both ways - they are paying for it in cash and they are getting assessed for it, too. MAYOR JUNRER stated that the Council reviewed his plan earlier and he asked Mr. Magnuson if he had something he wanted to say on this MR. MAGNUSON stated that it was very helpful that Mr. Caldwell could come tonite to mention this to him since he did not feel that the Council should let any contracts until this matter is straightened out. To enter into a contract when you know that you are going to get sued on the assessments - the cost is fixed - if you adjust his figure so it benefits him, you are going to have Feely mad at you - we should all get together and see how it is going to be handled to avoid a lawsuit. MR. CALDWELL stated that the City Attorney is not correct - the City Council has taken a policy throughout the industrial area here that everybody is going to get assessed $6,000 for streets and anything over and above that (per acre) is going to be adjusted on the State Aid formula - it is not tied to the cost of that improvement. MR. MAGNUSON stated that is not entirely correct (and Councilman Roger Peterson also indicated the same thing) and MR. CALDWELL stated that was his impression. 0 • • • • • • r October 21, 1980 MR. ELLIOTT stated that the Council had established a policy of $6,000 per OR acre in this area and that is an escalation over the previous nearest figure of $5,300. That falls quite short of paying for the street in there - in fact if this was assessed 100% it would cost $10,515 per acre - so $4,515 difference or shortall would be paid for out of Municipal State Aid Funds. What Mr. Caldwell is asking for is that the area of the street assessment be diminished roughly to five acres or about one -half the total 834 acres. It wouldn't have an effect on the Feely's assessment - it would have an effect of how many State Aid dollars - it would increase the utilization of State Aid dollars on this project by about $30,000, but it would not affect any other assessments - he felt that it is a Council policy question and a question of putting the philosophy to test to this depth property - whether or not they should assess the inside property. MR. CALDWELL stated that we take it one step further - if a person had a piece of property, theoretically if this property were 2,000 feet deep and he was providing his own interior roads and streets and whatever - somewhere this benefit diminishes - whether it is 200 feet or 300 feet or what have you, is immaterial - but if this property were 2,000 feet deep you can't tell him that S Curve Crest benefits half a mile up to the top and that is the problem - you have already established the precident in the Industrial Park when adjoining farms and what have you or vacant tracts that are abutting streets that are going in - you did it on the Feely property - on the property that Dr. Wallace has, you assessed back a flat 300 feet figuring that was the benefits to the property - so the precidence has already been established by the City. MR. ELLIOTT stated that the 300 feet is often used because that is usually half way the distance to the next street that might go in and they always want to reserve space so that they can assess the street to an area. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that he has been referring to it as precident thing and it is more policy - the Cohncil has had so- called policies over the last several years whereby the Cuty would pay 25% of all of the costs of all streets - that policy was changed. We had a policy in the Industrial Park where the cost per acre was something less than the $6,000 we have presently - all of these are policies - not precidence, he did not think - he felt that David was right that perhaps they should hold up the project until this has been settled - if we go into this knowing that we aew going to have a problem at the end of the line, it is kind of foolish to do that - we should probably hold up the project until the thing is settled. MAYOR JUNKER stated that Orleans Street will some day be built . . . MR. ELLIOTT stated that there is a great possibility it will be built, but would not go to the full extent of that property - it would terminate about two- thirds across the property. MR. CALDWELL stated - fine - if it is built now, that would solve the problem, fine - build it and add it to the improvement - build it and assess them $6 000 per acre for the back half here and he will save the $30,000 and not have to put in some of the private improvements, because the City has elected not to put Orleans Street in. MAYOR JUNKER stated that the reason that it is not being put in is that it has me never been petitioned for so we can't put it in - he asked Mr. Caldwell if he would petition the City to put it in at the present time and MR. CALDWELL responded that he would right now. MR. MAGNUSON stated that would be adding additional costs to the project - three would have to be a hearing - the way it is now the project has a fixed number of dollars - you either have to decide by letting him off the hook here with this assessment that you are going to (1) give that extra money to Feely to swallow, or (2) take Municipal State Aid money and throw that into the "pot" to the extent of more than half of the project. MR. ELLIOTT explained on a drawing the assessments that had been made on North- western Avenue and the area that was assessed for same and the portion that was assessed on the Kern improvement of Curve Crest and the Feely property has been assessed for that and likewise on Washington Avenue - that was extended 300 feet. He reserved a given area more than 300 feet because of the unknowns with respect to the Benson farm - when that goes ahead, possibly they would only be able to assess a given area on the drawing - now this improvement has gone ahead and they did trim off a piece of this for the assessment area - the policy in a sense is there and when they came over to the current Curve Crest improve- ment which has a little different configuration and he pointed out the location of their property, they took the whole area for the reason that they felt that they would never have a benefit as a result of Orleans Street and, therefore, they included the area now - this was the approach and it was discussed at the time of the report - if they want to stipulate that changes something. 1 255 • • • • • 656 October 21, 1980 MAYOR JUNKER asked if Mr. Elliott and Mr. Caldwell and David Magnuson meet and whoever else, the Feelys, and figure it out and bring it back to the Council. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON asked if you took 300 feet on the north - took that 300 feet and then you took 300 feet on the north /south of that and he asked about a given area that was not assessed and MR. ELLIOTT stated that Orleans Street would one day and they must reserve area to assess that improvement against - s this area will one day be for Orleans Street. MAYOR JUNKER asked about reserving the other half of the Charter Oaks for that, too, and MR. ELLIOTT stated that at the time when they looked at the development there was not going to be any access to Orleans Street and he felt that they might have difficulty proving benefit. MAYOR JUNKER stated that Orleans street runs by this property, but MR. ELLIOTT stated that it is platted there only. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON asked on those areas that were assessed 300 feet back was that on an acreage basis or front foot basis and MR. ELLIOTT stated that it was on acreage - it was a total assessment on an acreage basis. He did have the acreage here as 10.6 acres - that is used for street and utility assessments. MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Magnuson he saw any problems in doing it the same way here and MR. MAGNUSON responded that he did in the sense that the total project is a fixed number of dollars and we take the 300 foot setup and it doesn t matter to him - it is going to matter to s mebody because it is going to cost more per foot if you assess it on 300 feet rather than spread it over the whole area. It is going to cost somebody else some money - it is either going to cost the City more out of State Aid money or it is going to cost Feely's nore - it has got to come from some- where. MR. ELLIOTT stated that the cost doesn't disappear because you change the area. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that he indicated he paid the whole $6,000 per acre, then they would not be assessed for Orleans Street and MR. ELLIOTT responded that he would be assessed for streets once and that is all and he would doubt very much that we could go back and hit him with Orleans Street. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that if you cut one and assess both sides of Orleans you are still where we are now. MR. CALDWELL stated that basically it boils down to a policy determination on the part of the Council - if you want Orleans Street to stay like it is that is an item - then they would go ahead the way they are now and they may have an argument over it, but it will never happen because if they are assessed and again the City assesses for the streets all the way through, nobody can afford to put that cul -de- sac back in there with only roughly two- thirds of the property abutting that actually benefiting by the improvement and on the other side of the coin if you want it to stay as an alley as it is - that is fine. It ought to stay the way it is - if, indeed, the City wants to improve Orleans from the intersection out to Greeley Street, they are willing to stipulate that they will benefit from the improvement and pay their pro -rated share on an acreage basis like the other abutting property owners when Orleans Street goes in. MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Elliott and Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Magnuson to meet to see if they could work out something and possibly bring the Feelys since the contractor is anxious to get going and report back at the next regular meeting. MR. ELLIOTT asked the Council if it was still their intent to award the contract to Arcon in accordance with the action taken at the 4:00 P. M. meeting since the contractor is anxious to get started on the project. MR. MAGNUSON asked if it had been awarded and the response was "yes" - if the Council is going to buy themselves a lawsuit by awarding it, the Council should certainly be well advised as to what they are doing. MAYOR JUNKER stated that they discussed the per acreage assessment of $6,000 per acre at the earlier meeting - the discussion is what you feel that we should do with his ten acres to five acres, correct? He filt that this did not have anything to do with the awardir6 of the bid to Arcon - Feely's petitioned for the work to be done. MR. MAGNUSON stated t.at if you know there could be a portion of this that the entire City has to pay because of the assessment appeal that he would bring, or if you change the policy anal you have to pay somebody for a lawsuit that Feely brings it seems reasonable to me that you get those people to agree on how this is going to be handled before you ever award the contract. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that sounded reasnable to him, too. iW 11 d 0 7 • • 7 • • October 21, 1980 2 5 f • OM 9' p• 1 n• • R./ MAYOR JUNKER stated that we have ten days before we have to sign the contract and MR. ELLIOTT reminded the Council that it is October 21st and you talk about two weeks delay and he would hope that the solution to this could be expedited, not for the sake of Caldwell or anyone else - he did not care which way it goes, but it is Council decision, but he really felt that the timing on this is rather pointed. MAYOR JUNKER asked if they could meet before Friday and have something straigh- tened out one way or another and tell the Council if it is right or wrong and then the Council could award the contract to Arcon at that time. MR. CALDWELL stated that if the City is willing to entertain the thought they are willing to participate in the improvements with Orleans Street as a policy decision, he felt that they could do the technical thing next Friday and report back to the City - from a policy standpoint they feel it is the fair way that they pay one -half of the acreage against Curve Crest and half against Orleans - he was sure that the details could be worked out and that the City Attorney would bear him out with that fact, too - they can draw up the agreements and have it done for the next Council meeting. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that in Mr. Caldwell's plan if he pays the whole $60,000 and it has to be divided between Orleans and Curve Crest, the City is still going to be short on Curve Crest are we not? You can't take the $6,000 from all of his property and put it on Curve Crest and then have the City pay for his side of the street and the other property owners pay for the other side of Orleans. MR. ELLIOTT stated that the intent has always been to use State Aid Funds on Curve Crest in accordance with the policy, but not on Orleans. COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that if you assess both sides of ORLEANS Street, the money thrt goes from his property to Orleans is not in Curve Crest Lane any more - it is just 300 feet of it, so that still cuts his Curve Crest almost in half, so that money has to be picked up some place. MR. CALDWELL stated that there probably would be a greater assessment against Orleans because there is no State Aid, but that is at some point in the future when the City wants to do it - they may have to pay $12,000 per acre four years from now for Curve Crest. MAYOR JUNKER felt that there are some other details that have to be discussed too - in the way the bid went - that should be discussed before any decision is made. MR. ELLIOTT stated that Mr. Caldwell had asked before the meeting about the total amount of the bid - actually the bids came in quite a bit lower than they had estimated and, therefore, the utilities, of course, come in lower the street assessment remains at the fixed assessment and is not affected by the bid because that is Council decision that it be $6,000 per acre - their utility assessments are lower but they are not asking that the area be reduced for the utilities - that remains at 8.26 acres - they are asking that the area be reduced for the street and the street only. MAYOR JUNKER stated that if we have a policy of $6,000 per acre and you estimated it at $490,000 and it comes in at $364,000 who gets the other $130,000? MR. ELLIOTT responded that the street estimates came in such that if the streets were totally assessed they would be assessed at a rate of $10,500 per acre - the $4,500 per acre comes from State Aid - our assessments were higher maybe it would have been $5,500 per acre from Municipal State Aid, but the $6,000 comes from assessments and the balance from State Aid - the utility costs came in quite a bit lower - sanitary sewer was estimated at $2,337 per acre assessment and lined on the bids it is going to be $1,421 an acre - roughly $1,000 an acre less, but that isn't really what he is asking, although that affects his property substantially as it reduces the assessments on utilities - they are looking for relief on some of the street assessment. MAYOR JUNKER stated that somebody has to give them an answer here . . . COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that is why we are going to meet - Feely will be there, too, and they will talk about it - do they want to go through with the deal and does Feely want to pick it up or discharge it. MAYOR ard the bids - we the o'clock meeting the and heCouncil wasshould not informed that they could rescind that action. MR. ELLIOTT asked Mr. Magnuson - even in light of Council action, does that contract only become a contract when signed by the City and MR. MAGNUSON responded " " • . there has been an award, but until the Mayor signs that contract there is no contract - there is time in the meantime even in light of Council action . . • s • • 1 1 • 0 • October 21, 1980 MR. CALDWELL asked Mr. Elliott if initially under his estimates how much State Aid Funds were going to have to be used for the streets - there are three numbers and they are the key to this whole prolicy decision and it does not involve the Feelys at all and would not have to meet with them. MR. ELLIOTT stated that considering that the bids were opened this morning, he was being asked for a lot of information on short order, but he estimated that the Municipal State Aid money required on the project would be $247,000 - we now estimate that $193,000 will be required because the bids came in lower - roughly $50,000 less State Aid money is required for the project. MR. CALDWELL stated that this does not involve the Feelys because if you keep the $6,000 per acre assessment constant which does not fluctuate it has nothing to do with them - it was a policy set that it be $6,000 per acre - the $6,000 an acre is held constant - their street assessments go down by roughly $30,000 and then there will be the amount picked up from Orleans and it will end up less than budget for State Aid - this is a policy decision and the City Attorney, the City Engineer and himself meeting next Friday canmot set policy - they can work out the details of the policy . . . MR. ELLIOTT reviewed the figures for this project - they estimated $247,000 State Aid Money required - based upon the bids and based upon assessing the total parcel of Mr. Cadlwells's $193,000 will be required from the Stat Aid monies - if the area is reduced, there is $30,000 more required and the State Aid monies will be $222,000 - originally $247,000 - $193,000 if you assess the property, but if you reduce his assessments the $30.000 comes from State Aid and it increased the State Aid requirement to $222,000 which is still $25,000 less than the estimated. MAYOR JUNKER asked how about them doing that and he responded it is a matter of Council policy and advice from the attorney on the vulnerability of policy with respect to this lot configuration to put to a test in the courtroom and the issue is now that it can be decided without involving other properties within this improvement; if it was decided in the courtroom he would expect that there would be a re- assessment - the Feelys would be paying more, there would be property changes in the meantime and it would be a messier situation then negotiations are in order. MAYOR JUNKER asked if we were to take and put the $30,000 to the $193,000 and make it $223,000 and have him sign an agreement that we would pick up that money when Orleans Street goes through by his property, is that illegal, Mr. Magnuson? MR. MAGNUSON stated that is a complicated question because he is not going to be 100% assessed for Orleans because there is property on the north side of the street and there is property on the south side of the street and may be possible that they do not want the street at all or can't afford the street. MAYOR JUNKER stated that if he has five acres at $6,000 that is $30,000 and asked if that could be assessed to him for Orleans Street. MR. MAGNUSON stated that the question is with the project - you would like to depart from your policy and pay about $30,000 more out of State Aid money to make this project go through . . . MAYOR JUNKER stated that you are still getting it back from them on Orleans Street and MR. MAGNUSON replied that it is too a viable alternative because Orleans Street might not go in for 30 years - it might not go in at all and in the mean- time we have the responsiblity on the bonds that have to be met and you have to finance it out of some other fund. MAYOR JUNKER stated i that if Orleans Street is not going in for thirty years, then we should not put this strk t in either. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON if orleans Street, the little jog that we are talking W about here to the culde -de -sace, is not going to go in for many years, what is the assurance on Orleans Street(on the drawing) is going to go in - is that partly in now? MR. ELLIOTT atated that it is a part of the plat that will be dealt with in the design when they make the street opening, everything is prepared - they have stubbed sewer and water and storm sewer out - everything is ready and there are also lots that can only be served by the extension of that street - it is drawn incorrectly - -it is a little bit further to the west - there are properties on the east side and west side that can only be served by that Orleans Street extension; therefore, if that property is going to be utilized at any date in the future that street will have to go in. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK stated that a couple of months ago when the Feelys plat was signed and approved it was approved with dedicating Outlot B with the connection of Orleans Street going west and at some future date she was sure that Orleans would go by his property. *4 I aI I{ e a • • • 1 • • • • ^ October 21, 1980 259 MR. ELLIOTT stated that he could see this improvement going in and apparently pm there are apartment buildings - when the property on the corner of Greeley and Orleans is improved (southwest corner) he would recommend that the Cuuncil insist on getting the additional right -of -way to make a full street right -of -way - -there is only about 40 feet right -of -way in there now. MAYOR JUNKER stated that there are three houses on Orleans Street and there is only one house that cannot be serviced if Orleans Street was not put in and MR. ELLIOTT felt that Orleans Stteet will go in some day and there was discussion about the alignment of Orleans Street and the houses located there. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON asked Mr. Caldwell what his firm's estimate would be for the total investment in this Charter Oaks Development dollar wise - will this create a substantial amount of employment - you will be buying a lot of materials and we are sitting here fighting about $30,000 -he felt that we might stifle the project that we need in the economy that is stumbling right now and MR. CALDWELL replied that it is several million dollars. MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Magnuson to give them an answer - can they put the $30,000 back on Orleans Street within the next two or three years, if we have to. MR. MAGNUSON stated that he was really asking, 'should you mend the extra $30,000 out of State Aid money now'and the answer is "yes", it is a policy decision and you have to decide whether you think this project is worth financing out of State Aid money which belongs to all of the citizens to the tune of more than $6,000 per acre the way it was done with all of the other parcels and the way you have adopted to do with this one; and in addition to that, another $30,000 to PM finance this project and that is a policy decision that you can make and you can make it as long as you know - as long as you are advised of your legal rights you I 1 can do it - he stated that he does not make those decisions for the Council. COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON did not feel that the fact that this is a several million dollar project or a buck and a half should have no bearing on this - the fact remains that what you are going is taking $30,000 out of State Aid Funds which belong to the entire City of Stillwater for a development that is not necessarily going to benefit the entire population of the City of Stillwater and he felt that the City Attorney is right when he says that you are not being very far - sighted if you go into a project if you know that you are going to be sued and just walking into it knowing that likelihood is there - he would frankly like to see the action taken this afternoon awarding the bid rescinded and instruct the City Attorney, the Consulting Engineer and Mr. Caldwell to meet to resolve this situation and come up with a recommendation and he would so move. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, the Council rescinded the action taken on the resolution "AWARDING THE BID TO ARCON" and instruct the Cuty Atrorney and Consulting Engineer to meet with Mr. Caldwell and come up with a recommendation and report back to the Council at its earliest convenience. As COUNCILMAN POWELL stated that the recommendation will come back to take it out of State Aid Funds and he felt that is the proper way to go. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK asked if the Feelys were included in the meeting and COUNCILMAN ROGER PETERSON stated that was not part of his motion - this is just a meeting with the City Attorney, the Consulting Engineer and Mr. Caldwell. VOTE ON THE MOTION - Ayes -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Harry Peterson and Powell Nays - -None Abstained - Mayor Junker (motion carried) PETITIONS None THE MAYOR DHLARED A RECESS AT 8:55 TO 9:05 P. M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. This was the day and time tor the public hearing on Case No. 392 for a sub - division and variance for property at 202 East St. Croix Avenue for Terrance Needham. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on October 10, 1980 and copies were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing. • • • • wl R • • (260 INDIVIDUALS & DELEGATIONS (continued) None at this time October 21, 1985 TERRANCE NEEDHAM requested a minor sub - division at this addresp, he is on the corner of property between single and two- family districts. H rfurned down at the Planning Commission but there was one allowed on property of the same size as his and he made quotes from the Planning Commission meeting which indicated that Mr. Strand and Mr. Churchill were against this and talking to his two neighbors they were misquoted and he submitted to the Mayor a petition signed by his neighbors as not being opposed to it. He talked to Mr. Churchill today and he liked open spaces, but he was not going to fight this since it was his right. He did not feel that it would hurt the area in anyway; it would bring more taxes into the City. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICR indicated in her conversation with Mr. Churchill that he did not approve of it - he was at the Planning Commission meeting, but he did not stay for any of the discussion and yet Mr. Needham states that he did approve of it. None of the neighbors appeared in favor or opposed to this request. MAYOR JUNRER asked him if he desired to make the one lot 5,000 and the other one 10,000 and he replied that it would be more desirable if they could divide it to make each of them 7,500 square feet and he plans to build a single family home on this parcel. There were questions raised about the zoning of this property and it was concluded that this is a single family area and also questions were raised about the size of these two parcels. There were questions about whether or not he plans to live in the new house that will be built here and Mr. Needham responded that he was not sure at this time THE MAYOR CLOSED THE HEARING. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by the Council denied the request for the sub - divison and Needham. VOTE ON THE MOTION - Ayes -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, and Roger Peterson Nays -- Councilman Powell (Mayor Junker did not indicate Councilman Roger Peter_ n, variance for Terrance Councilmen Harry Peterson (motion carried) a vote on this motion) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, the City Attorney made the second reading of an ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING STILLWATER CITY CODE, SECTION 33.01, BUILDING CODE OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER, AMENDING MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES ". The ordinance was read section by section followed by roll call after each section and all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. The chair then put the question, "Shall this ordinance pass ?" and on roll call the ordinance was unanimously adopted. 2. COUNCILMAN HARRY PETERSON reported on the Administrative Committee meeting on the bids for the new loader - the mood of the committee continues to be one of reluct- ance to engage in the purchase of the new loader at a time when we are not obviously forced to buy a new loader. The loader that we have still has some years on it with some maintenance costs connected with it, but the City is faced with an outlay at this time of something over $30,000 in cash even trading in the existing loader and felt it was ridiculous to commit the funds at this time. On motion of Councilman Harry Peterson, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, the matter of a new loader was tabled indefinitely even though bids have been offered at this time and rejecting all bids. (all in favor) NEW BUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the matter of the firelanes at the Birchwood AArtments be referred to the City Attorney for his study and recommendation and report back at a later date. (all in favor) 2. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, the Council authorized the payment of $20.00 to Renee Schoenecker for damage to a stroller at the Public Library. (all in favor) 151 *1 • • • • • t • • October 21, 198D 261 " • APPLICATIONS On motion of Councilman Harry Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the following Contractor's Licenses were approved: (all in favor) Scott Builders, Inc. 2345 Rice St., #209, St. Paul 55113 General Renewal Mll w CO[M4UNICATIONS From a boater and friend concerning the condition of the boat ramp at Mulberry Point. The Council directed that this letter be turned over to Muller Boat Works and also that the City Attorney check the lease regarding maintenance and other related items on this property - they felt that there is a need for better up- keep and to check out the responsibilities. CONSULTING ENGINEER'S REPORT (continued) MR. MOORE stated that Mr. Kriesel and himself polled the parties that will be assessed for the Center Street Improvement (Local Improvement No. 186) and they are in favor of proceeding with the project. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, a resolution was introduced "AWARDING THE BID FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NO. 186 TO THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER JULIAN JOHNSON" AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson, 14 Powell and Mayor Junker. NAYS- -None (see resolutions) I CITY CLERK'S REPORT 1. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a resolution was introduced RESOLUTION RELATING TO A PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT: CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON" (Date of the hearing will be November 18, 1980) and also the City Attorney is to request a petition for annexation of this property. (Hauge property) 2. On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilman Roger Peterson, a resolution was introduced "EMPLOYING HELP FOR THE ARENA" (Lundeen and Wohlers) Ayes -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker Nays - -None (see resolutions) 3. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilman Powell, the Council authorized the payment of $50.00 to the First Methodist Church and St. Paul's Lutheran Church for the use of their facilities for the Primary and General Elections. (all in favor) CITY COORDINATOR'S REPORT (continued) 1. MR. ICRIESEL pointed out to the Council on the list of bills the payment to the Stockbridge Construction Co. INDIVIDUALS AND DELEGATIONS (continued) MR. CALDWELL stated that he did not want anybody to leave here with the impression that he had any intention of suing this body or any other body or contesting the assessments or what have you - -he cams here strictly for two reasons; (1) to let the Council know that they had to find out about the assessments ; (2) he felt that it was well within the Council's power to consider this request sometime in the future; (3) he did not feel that by going anead with the assessment on the entire parcel - he could see that precluding anything being done to that half of Orleans Street - all he wanted to do was to say 'let's think about it - decide which way we want to go in the future - there was no intent on his part of con- testing assessments or anything else'- he either misquoted himself or somebody mis- interpreted him, but he did not know ;which it was and he apologized. The project has to go ahead and it is needed and he cannot afford to go to court - it is not just practical and he highly encouraged that the Council continue on with it and to setup a meeting on this matter. NEW BUSINESS (continued) 3. On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a resolution was introduced "DIRECTING THE PAYMENT OF THE BILLS ". AYES -- Councilwoman Bodlovick, Councilmen Harry Peterson, Roger Peterson, Powell and Mayor Junker NAYS- -None (see resolutions) e • • • • 1 i • r62 • APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Councilman Roger Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, minutes of the following meetings were approved: September 16, 1980 September 16, 1980 September 22, 1980 September 29, 1980 September 30, 1980 October 7, 1980 October 8, 1980 October 14, 1980 October 21, 1980 ORDINANCES Second Reading - Mechanical Permit Fees Regular Meeting Recessed Meeting Special Meeting Special Meeting Special Meeting Regular Meeting Recessed Meeting Special Meeting 4:00 P. M. 7:30 P. M. 4:30 P. M. 4:30 P. M. 7:30 P. M. 7:30 P. M. 7:00 P. M. 7:00 P. M. RESOLUTIONS The following resolutions were read and on roll call were unanimously adopted: 1. Directing the Payment of the Bills 2. Awarding the Contract for Local Improvement Nos. 186 and 188 3. Hearing for Immo Nuclear Bonds 4. Employing Arena Hel- - Lundeen and Wohlers ADJOURNMENT On motion of Councilman Powell, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 P. M. Attest: • City Clerk Mayor r s t _ • a • • • 1