Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-10-06 CC MIN• • COUNCIL CHAMBERS Stillwater, Minnesota October b, 1981 7:30 P. M. REGULAR MEETING The meeting was called to order by President Junker. The Invocation was given by the City Clerk. Present: Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor Junker Absent: None Also Present: Finance Director /Coordinator, Kriesel; City Clerk, Schnell; City Attorney, Magnuson; Superintendent of Public Works, Shelton; Public Safety Director, Abrahamson; Director of Parks & Recreation, Blekum; Consulting Engineers, Elliott Meister and Van Wormer; Planning Commission Chairman, Farrell; Bonding Consultant, Ron Langness Press: St. Croix Valley Free Press - Jeanne Landkammer Citizens: Mr. & Mrs. Leonard Feely, Mark Karason, John Caldwell, Don Raleigh, Mr. & Nis. Thomas Hudson, Gene Schleusner, Harvey Moelter, Mr. & Mrs. David Johnson and their secretary, Mrs. Kraft, Mr. Bittner (representing the Eagles), Michael McGuire, Sondra Gozzi, Brian Crombie, Virginia Hughes, Bruce Folz, Marvel Old, Tom Cropp, Mr. & Mrs. John Putz, Linda Hinz, Brian Nichols, Duane Sherburne, Joel Sherburne, representa- tives from Burlington Northern, representatives from GTA, Don Stefan, Rahmond Garbolis, Kenneth Jerzak, William Devitt, Tom Olms INDIVIDUALS & DELEGATIONS 1. MARK KARASON, representing The Freighthouse, appeared before the Council re garding the City Council adopting an ordinance permitting establishments with Sunday Liquor licenses to serve liquor from 10:00 A. M. to 12 :00 o'clock midnight which is in accordance with the new state law. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Peterson, the City Attorney made the first reading by title of an ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 43.01 OF THE STILLWATER CITY CODE INVOLVING THE LICENSING AND REGULATING THE SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS." (all in favor) 2. BRIAN NICHOLS, owner of The Davian Building appeared before the Council regarding the conversion of this business building into condo units which is operating with a Special Use Permit and looking for advice on how this would be accomplished and as to whether or not he needed Council approval. The use would remain the same and the units would become office condos. MR. MAGNUSON stated that currently the City does not have such an ordinance - in this case it is not much different than Mr. Nichols selling the building - he would not need the City's permission to do that - if he would give the Council the assurances that the same conditions of the Special Use Permit would be trans- ferable to each of the new owners that he would not need any spacial permission from the Council. in the will meet covenant incouded next regular Council meeting. PETITIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. This was the day and time tor the public hearing on Case No. 428 for a Special Use Permit for John Putz, 1301 West Orleans Street to convert a single family dwelling into a duplex in a single family zone. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on September 25, 1981 and copies were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing. 499', • • • • • • 500 • October 6, 1981 MRS. JOHN PUTZ stated that they are petitioning for the Council to agree to this request because this home is adjacent and overlooking multiple dwelling units which has changed the market appeal for the property. No one appeared objecting to this request - it was approved by the Planning Commission on the 28th of September. JOHN CALDWELL, representing Charter Oaks Development, stated that they dod not oppose the request - feels that it is appropriate. The Mayor closed the hearing On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Avise, the Council granted the Special Use Permit to John Putz, 1301 West Orleans Street to convert this dwelling into a duplex. (all in favor) 2. This was the day and time for the public hearing on the proposed assessments for Local Improvement No. 185 (Curve Crest and Industrial Blvd. in the Feely Plat). Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the Cuty on September 21, 1981 and copies were mailed to all property owners proposed to be assessed. The Mayor opened the hearing. LEONARD FEELY had filed an objection with the City Clerk on these improvements - there are a few items to be straightened out on these assessments. JOHN CALDWELL representing Stillwater Housing Partners (Charter Oaks) owners of Lot 4, Block 2 of the Feely Addition and they would like to go on record and they have submitted a written objection to the assessment based on two items - (1) they feel that the engineering on the project are inordinately high - they have never received any itemized breakdown on the actual services performed and in what capacity - they have not received any indication as to where this money went or how much was being billed for what functions and they feel that they are entitled to that before they would agree to the assessment; (2) during the construction period they had a bit of a problem initially with coordinating their construction activities and the construction activities with the City's contractor, Arcon, on Curvecrest Blvd. He detailed the problems that they experienced with Arcon on the grading and the removel of fill and those quantities of fill subsequently by contract deposited on Mr. Feely's property and compacted there and there was no authorization on their part at the time of the letting of the contract to allow the contractor to do that. It cost them a considerable amount of money to replace that fill by having to truck it in from outside the area - in rough figures it cost them about $3.00 per yard and there were about 7,500 ya is - it is their feeling and they have never been app'oached by the City Engineer to try to resolve this issue - it is their feeling that ttis is, indeed, a cost that they should not have to bear itself - at a minimum it should be a project cost as Mr. Feely did benefit by the fill being placed and compacted on his property - it hurt them considerably and they are having to bill the whole hill for it and on that basis they do object to the assessments. MR. ELLIOTT stated that number (1) the services which they performed on the Charter Oaks site in accordance with direction from the Council and those engineering services that were questioned were the inspection of sewer, water, streets and the staking of those in facilities on -site - this was in accordance with direction from the Council which they can document - every hour that was spent on the project, the bill was submitted to the City and approved by the City and subsequently added to the assess- ment of the Charter Oak Development; (2) it is not correct that there has not been an explanation in respect to the earth work in the vicinity of the Charter Oak property - he recalled satanding here at the time of the transfer of the property to Charter Oaks ,_. from Mr. Feely - however, at one point and time they were dealing with Mr. Feely as total fee owner of the property - there were some slopes that went onto the Charter Oaks property - those amounts of material taken were minimal - they can be calculated and in accordance with their inspector the excavations did not go beyond the slopes on the plans - they have good records of what was taken. He believedthat there is evidence of the fact that there was no calculation on the part of any contractor or Orville Madsen Construction Co. when the work was done on that site as to a calcula- tion of earth work done - he thought that there was a shortage at the end and then this search developed. MR. MAGNUSON stated that the assessment roll has been prepared by the engineer and it is in a form that could be adopted by the Council if they see fit or the Council can adjourn this hearing to look into this and consider it at the next regular meeting, as long as it is adopted by October tenth. There are just the two property owners that are being assessed for these improvements. MR. KRIESEL stated that we have to certify to the County Auditor by October tenth but the City has 45 days in which they can make adjustments to an assessment roll if there are any. He advised that the Council should adopt this assessment roll tonite. The Mayor closed the hearing. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Peterson, a resolution was introduced "ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NO. 185, WITH INTEREST RATE AT 9.75. AND THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD TO BE TWENTY YEARS ". AYES: Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS: None (see resolutions) • • • • October 6, 1981 2. This was the day and time for the public hearing on the proposed assessment and re- assessments for Local Improvement No. 166 - Municipal Parking Lot and other improve- ments on South Main Street. Notice of the hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on September 21, 1981 and copies were mailed to all property owners proposed to be assessed. The Mayor opened the hearing. MR. KRIESEL presented the figures used in the preparation of the assessment roll and at the time that the Council ordered the improvement for the work to be done in the downtown area and it was their intention at that time to finance the traffic control system, the traffic re- alignment and also the downtown parking lot - they ordered the work to be done as one improvement hearing and what took place last year was the they had final figures on the downtown parking lot and they assessed at that time the cost of the parking lot - since that time some other work has taken place and some storm sewer work on Main and Nelson and also the traffic re- alignment and the hazard signal at Nelson and Main and the traffic signal work at Main and Chestnut - and Main and Myrtle. The total cost of all of the work in the downtown area was $605,897.26 - of that total, $238,974.76 was strictly for the parking lot - the cost of t'. traffic signals, storm sewers and re- alignment was $366,922.50. A CITIZEN asked about the engineering fees of 30% and MR. KRIESEL stated that there was a lot of work done with traffic surveys and parking need surveys and other pre- liminary work that had to be done before the Council took action. When the assess- ments were done in 1980, it was done on estimated costs as the final costs were not in at that time and it always was the City's intention to have another assessment or re- assessment when the costs came through. On the assessment appeals themselves, the casts of the appeals are in the new figures for the parking lot and this accounts for an increased cost. MR. KRIESEL further stated that of the $605,897.26, $183,794 has been assessed - that is 30% of the total cost of all the work downtown plus about 777, of the cost of the parking lot itself of the $238,974.76. A CITIZEN asked about the $55,000 for the parking lot revenues and MR. KRIESEL stated that regardless of how the City is going to finance it, whether it is parking revenues or through a general tax levy, the assessment will be 77% and the balance will have to be picked up either through parking revenues or thru some other revenues. The City of Stillwater itself will be picking up $151,233.17, with approximately $28,000 of that will come through a General Tax Levy and it is anticipated that $55,000 will be picked up through parking revenues and approximately $68,000 that the City has applied for MSA funds - it is not guaranteed at this time - it has been applied for and we are confident that we will get it. The Washington County's re on Chestnut and Main was $ the State of Minnesota picked up $135,901.27 and the Federal Aid Urban funds amounted to $129,624.13. AL BITTNER, representing the Eagles, asked about the pickup for the cost of the flasher and the reply was that the City picked up the total cost of same at Main and Nelson Street. MR. VAN WORMER stated that the State agreed to share in the cost of the traffic signals but would not share in the cost of the flasher. MR. BITTNER also asked for an explanation of how the assessment total figure was arrived at and MR. KRIESEL stated that the Parking Lot costs were $238,974.76 - $55,000 has been deducted from that to arrive at the $183,974.76 which will be assessed and the City's share will be the receipts from the revenue off the parking meters in that lot. SONDRA GOZZI, 402 South Main Street, asked what kind of recer,ue the City has received off the parking lot so far as compared to the cost incurred. at point nly about little cost because it is a costs in tatd that replacing broken meters - thru the month of August that the City had collected approximately $67,000 which is over a one year period. MRS.GOZZI stated that she wanted to go on record for herself that this is a City parking lot that benefits all of Stillwater and feels that it should come out of the General Fund. MR. KRIESEL stated that we have a total project cost for the parking lot, traffic signals, storm sewer, the curb and gutter, etc. for a total of approximately $606,000 and 30% of that cost is being paid for thru assessments- 25% of the cost is being paid from other funds rather than assessments - the City is going to have to come up with 25% of the cost whether it is from parking revenues or a tax levy. DON STEFAN, (Poor Butterfly and adjoining properties), as far as the City, are they picking up any of the cost of the parking lot - as he understood it basically nothing but revenues that will be taken in from the parking lot - he felt that everybody is getting benefit for those dollars - there are people coming downtown parking - there are people who are going thru town that are using the signal lights and traffic and they are not paying - special assessments are a substantial amount for the work that has been done downtown and he felt that it should be open for discussion as to where thos dollars should come from to nay for all of the work that was done downtown. • • • • 1 i i • • (2 • October 6, 1981 MR. KRIESEL stated that we are not going to derive enough revenue out of the parking lot to pay for the balance of the work that was done in the downtown area. A REPRESENTATIVE FROM BURLINGTON NORTHERN stated that the City is picking up 25% of the cost, but they are not picking up 25% of the parking lot - there is a general benefit vs. a special benefit - the cost of the storm sewer is $338,000 - the cost of the parking lot is $71,000 not counting the land - he felt the ratio is not fair - if the Cuty is going to pick up 25% of the cost of the parking lot - on the other parking lots the City picked up 40% (the one back in 1964) - the people here are being assessed 100% of the cost of that parking lot. MAYOR JUNKER stated that this Council made the decision that the people on the hill should not pay for the parking lot - he has to believe that has to be it - now we are on a new assessment - if the revenues do not reach $55,000, some of the residents of the City of Stillwater are going to pay through their taxes and he did not believe that is fair - if he owned a store down there, that has to benefit him. THE BURLINGRON NORTHERN REPRESENTATIVE stated that he believed that it was of general benefit to have parking spaces as people use the parking lot nearest to the r.lace where they are going to shop. FRANK KRAFT who lives in Oak Park Heights represents the Eagles stated that this parking lot will not benefit him since he lives in Oak Park Heights and he felt that he would be paying for it through being a member of The Eagles. COUNCILWOMAN BODLOVICK stated that it was her understanding that the downtown retail merchants were going to be assessed for the full cost of the parking lot and no other residents in the City of Stillwater would be paying the "freight" for that parking lot. DUANE SHERBURNE, 210 South Main Street, commented on the phone calls that were made to the merchants as to whether or not they were in favor of the parking lot and at that time there was a suggested assessment - he felt that assessment is what they all voted for, but it turned out to be an altogether different number. MR. MAGNUSON explained this - at the time that was being considered Erickson's had sued the City to acquire a Special Use Permit to construct a filling station on that site and a number of the local businessmen came to him from the Downtown Retail Council asked w:iat the chances were of winning that lawsuit to prevent them from building a filling station and he told them that we coils not win - they then asked why the City acquired that for a parking lot and he in turn came to the Council and they stated that they had gotten into trouble the last time that they built a parking lot driving the merchants out and the City got sued for years so the Council would have to know that they are in favor of it. Bill Hann went to every individual in downtown and secured a pledge and he felt that is what upset a lot of people - that was not done by the City Council - there was no representative of the City, it was just a business man trying to get a sounding - a general feeling of the business men as to their willingness to pay for this lot. When all those pledges came in and the City Council determined that there was sufficient willingness to pay, they decided to go ahead with it - some people were mislead in that this man was acting in behalf of the City and he was not and the City Council did not take any action based on the pledge - there is a statutory requirement that the City assess at least 51% of the cost of this parking lot; otherwise, they would need a referendum in order to sell the bonds to finance the construction of it -- the dtermination that they made that there is a certain general benefit to the tune of 25% of the cost and that benefit will be shared by the general public and the balance is assessed against the downtown area. RAYMOND GARBOLIS,repreenting Burlington Northern, and he also has some downtown property that he has a partnership in and he read the definition of special and general benefits put out by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers - special benefits are — those which are direct and peculiar to the particular property - it is distinguished from incidental benefit enjoyed thru a greater or lesser extent by the land from the area of the improvement - the special benefit must flow from the construction of the public improvement as proposed; general benefits are those which come from sharing in the common advantage and convenience of public facilities in the general advance in value of real estate in the vicinity by reason of a public project - they are enjoyed by the neighborhood, or community served by the public project whether they are adjacent to it or in its vicinity. He made reference to testimony made by Mr. VanWormer at a recent court hearing and at that time he gave a description of the benefits to the Hooley property which is leased from the Burlington Railroad as compared to the hotel property and the description of the two were identical and as far as they were concerned the Hooley property is a general benefit - he also stated that the whole community had a general benefit from the parking lot and if there is a general benefit outside of this "ringed area" where they assessed the special benefit and if the hotel property has the same type of benefit as the railroad property, he did not understand why there wasn't a special benefit assessed to all of the commercial property in the downtown area and if there was a substantial amount that was of benefit to the community. The $55,000 that was suggested to be spread based on the general fund or wherever it comes from, is the projection of the income from the parking lot itself which is what he would call the community's funds - so if there is a general benefit to the entire community that is where it should come from. He asked about the cost of the litigation that is being assessed as a special benefit to the properties within this mprovement and if this is litigated again and there are other costs such as there was in the past, will they have a re- assessment to spread Lhat cost also. • • • • ■ • MIPS bw/ October 6, 1981 MR. MAGNUSON replied that the attorney's fees were for both the condemnation case when we acquired the property and then the processing of the nine appeals that took place - the total fees were $6,000 of which $2,000 were the condemna- tion and the $4,000 on the appeals. It is common to include those in a re- assessment - it is done everywhere - the statutes permit the City to assess all associated costs and appeals are clearly that. It is his understanding, but it is up to the Council, that if there are additional appeals, that can be an assessment for that amount. The City's appraiser who was paid a great deal to prepare appraisals for this City has indicated that the recent market values of these particular properties is sustained and is in fact more than the amount assessed against them by the City for the parking lot improvement. The City's appraiser has looked at the same standards as the property owners have and he feels that there is a special benefit in the market value. The Council is determining that there 1s a 25% general benefit and that amount will be paid by the City, and if the revenue from the parking lot is only $5,000 over the next ten years, the City taxpayers will be obligated to pay $50,000. In this proposal the risk is taken out of the picture as far as the property owners are concerned - the past resolution required the income from the lot to reduce the bonds - in this program the City is estimating that income will be $55,000 and if it is not the taxpayers will pay it - the risk is now on the City and not on the property owners. If the general benefit is recognized, then the Council is going to pay 25 %. MR. GARBLOIS asked that the Council think about what they are doing rather than going into this again and if there are more properties that are going to litigate this, which apparently there are, and all they found thus far is an error, if they are going to end up with the engineer getting an additional $10,000 for his costs and special assessments and several thousand for the attorney and appraisal costs, and that does not count what the people downtown have paid to fight what they call inequitable assessments and he asked that they take consideration before they make the final assessment. MR. VAN WORMER explained that what Mr. Garblois is pulling out is a single sentence or a portion of a sentence from the testimony and he felt that you would have to read the entire testimony before you find out exactly what the statements were relative to parking benefits - they feel and still do feel that the parking lot is of some general benefit to the entire downtown, but mostly of benefit to those that are within the area over which the assessments have been spread - that was brought up several times in the trial. MR. KENNETH JERZAK, GTA, Stillwater asked if the appeals were thrown out of court because of an error by the engineering firm and this was confirmed by the Mayor. He asked why the landowners should pick up these costs when it was a mistake by the engineering firm - did the engineering firm get more money off of this - did the City pay more attorney fees because they had to go thru it all again because of a mistake by the engineering firm - and also having to go back to court there are going to be more fees involved and it will be possibly another two days and did not feel that the property owners should have to bear these costs because of a mistake by the engineering firm. MR. KRIESEL explained as far as the error in the assessment roll that only in one sense applied to one property owner - once the assessment costs were re- calculated everybody else's assessment as he understood it increased so that the same people would have appealed the assessment regardless of that error - the people that appealed would have had higher assessments in the first place. There was not a charge from the engineering firm for the recalculations for the new assessment roll. MR. VAN WORMER stated that it was the intention of the Council at the time of the original assessment for the parking lot to put through a second assessment to take care of the street alignment and all the other costs and that we are not doing any- thing additional - the only thing that is lost is the actual court time - all of the preparation that was done for the first court rrial would be valid and applicable to the second trial if one comes up. MR. JERZAK stated that he has not heard one thing about the storm sewer complaints - they are all for the parking lot - now we have to re -open these assessments not only for the nine that originally appealed but everybody else can appeal and that will build up the costs and did not feel that they should have to pick up these extra fees. NR. WILLIAM DEVITT, attorney for GTA, stated that he concurred with Jerzak's state- ments - asked about the objections and if they could be filed in this case and he was informed that they could be and he filed his objection with the Clerk at this time They are objecting to the formula that was used in these properties - their total assessment is $11,347.85 - 80% of the formula is based on the area of the building (first floor) plus the proximity to the parking lot itself - 20% is based on the parking needs. In GTA'S case about 9% of the business is the sale of feed and they pull up to the docks and load up the feed as opposed to taking it out somewhere else. They determined that GTA had none for parking and the determination was also made that the needs of GTA would ordinarly need two spaces - the maximum charge would be $1,019 ad the same also felt that taking the someone area for he first and floor only was feel that was not (continued on page 4) • • 1 ■ October 6, 1981 fair since many of the businesses do make use of the other floors and sited among them Simonets, St. Croix Outfitters, Brines, Reed Drug, The Freighthouse, Grand Garage & Gallery and the Brick Alley building and GTA is only one floor and that this is not equitable. Challenges can be made by an appeal for disapportionate distribu- tion among property owners for the full cost of the improvement. AL BITTNER asked if the City appraised all of the parcels or did they just appraise the nine that appealed and the reaponse was that it was just the nine that appealed - the fees ranged from $750 to $1,200. MR. BITTNER added that it did not cost them that much to have their appraiser do their appraisal and he felt that the City's appraiser was a little off on the fees for this work. MR. MAGNUSON stated that the formula need not be perfect - it must be fair and must be reasonable and it is the legislative determination that the Council can make and the formula itself can only be overturned if it fraudulent, illegal, or arbitrary and the formula that has been developed by the engineers has been used in other communities and upon his advice this is a reasonable formula. The reason why the second stories in the buildings were not used is because the engineer felt that it was unreasonable that there is such a disparity between the uses and the uses could change, such that one might be used for apartments next year and it would be better and more reasonable to disregard comparing particular floors of the buildings and he felt it was better to use just the ground floor. If the Council feels that the assessment is fair, they can determine the assessment roll is proper and it can be adopted. MR. JERZAR felt that it was unfair to him since all of this square footage is just on one floor and has been assessed for all of it. MR. MAGNUSON stated that the question would arise if the second floor of a building was an apartment should they be assessed for parking lot assessment for a commercial business - the question was raised that if there was such a change if there would have to be a reassessment for any changes on the other floors of a building and that it was best not to consider any of the other floors for this area. The stabs does permit in parking lots to take into consideration any potential use of the property and the appraiser appraised it as the highest and best use and that was commercial - either that it is commercial now or in the reasonably near future and the future could be a restaurant. On rental property it is based on the rental space available in making the appraisals and the income of the tenant does not enter into it, since this is not relevant to the appraisal. TOM OLMS, property tax representative for GTA, asked the City Engineer what cities used or possibly discussed with as far as the proposed assessment of the special assessment for the parking lot and MR. VAN WORMER stated that there were similar assessments in White Bear Lake and North St. Paul based on similar formulas. The question was asked how many appeals were receifed up tonite on this re- assessment and the response was nine. Questions were raised as to the amount of the reductions and MR. WAN WORMER stated that because of the increase in the cost of the second time around some were not 25% in their reductions - it should also be pointed out that the City is virtually saying there is no additional assessment for any of the other work not included in the first assessment hearing - it is not a 16% reduction only - it is a 16% adjustment but there is no addi- tional costs for the road re- alignment, traffic signals or anything else that was added onto to it - we cannot lose site of those costs in these deliberations. MR. ELLIOTT stated that Municipal State Aid monies sound too easy the way we say it.- Main Street is not on the City's Municipal State Aid System - it is not and this Council is making a special request to the Minnesota Department of Transportation to use State Aid funds on an off - system basis on the downtown to reduce the assessments and that Stat Aid money is general benefit money - it belongs to the whole City - the City is attempting to get permission to use it - if the State denies it, then the Council will have to give consideration as to where that money will come from - it will probably be the General Fund. MR. VAN WORMER stated that the $68,000 is not a grant that is given from the State - it is money that belongs to the City in a special account for Munic¢al State Aid Streets - you are not taking money from one City fund and putting it into this project account. A CITIZEN asked what kinds of funds were available and what percent of use was available in regard to traffic control and he thought that there were federal programs that are 90/10 and that includes traffic controls and signals. MR. VAN WORMER stated that the project originally was a 90/10 project and these were the funds that the City were after and almost had - the 90/10 monies ran out and the only money that the State had was 75/25 - there is no 90/10 for signals. There was no federal money. MR. TOM HUDSON asked about the assessment on the storm sewers - everytime it rains he goes down to his bakery or calls the Fire Department to take out mud and water and this is a lot of money for a storm sewer when it doesn't do any good on that corner and this is of no benefit for the buildings on this corner. He has talked to the City Engineer on this matter several times. • • • 1 4 • J MR. JERZAK stated that they have some of the same problems - before the storm sewer project they never hid a water problem in their mill - after the project was done there were two big rains and twice they had a foot of water in their mill - there is too much water coming into it - before the water used to come down and just run into the river and now that it runs into the storm sewers it causes the problems and is backing up - it really hurt him more than it has helped him. MRS. GOZZI stated that she is experiencing problems with sewer gas coming up thru the grates and they have had to call out the Fire Department because they thought there was a gas leak in the area. A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE RAILROAD asked questions about the increases for the various areas and the amount of the increases for same and that it would reduce the assessments for the people further out on the rings and the response was "no ". THE MAYOR DELCARED A RECESS FROM 9:05 to 9:15 P. M. The Mayor closed the hearing On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, a resolution was introduced "ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND RE-ASSESSMENT % AND THE PAYMENT PERIOD FOR IMPROVEMENT NE 166 DENWITHE INTEREST AT DEBT SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT ". AYES -- Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor Junker (see resolutions) • NAYS - -None October 6, 1981 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. There was discussion on the Developer's Agreement for the Oak Glen Development and MR. NAGNUSON stated that the agreement covers all phases of the Oak Glen Project - it is part of the Planned Unit Development permit which has to do with the feasible development on the property - the most important facet in the agreement is the financing - it covers the issuance of the bonds to the way and manner in which they are repaid to the developer - there are temporary improvement bonds that will be sold along with those bonds there is capitalized interest - there are no interest payments that the developer will have to pay on the bonds during their term - the City is actually financing the paymen s so that they have the money to pay those future payments when they come due on the Temporary Bonds and when all the develop- ment is complete and what are called the long term bonds to be sold those will be paid over a term of twenty years. The Developers Agreement is unusual because it provides some rather unusual personal guarantees on behalf of the developer and the members of the developer /partnership. The Bonds are for $6,100,000 and the developer and all the members have personally guaranteed the pre - payment of the bonds and that guarantee is a part of the Developer's Agreement which provides that all of the developers pledge their entire personal assets to the repayment of the bonds so that if there is a default in the obligations of the developer to come up with money, the City can proceed against each of the individuals for that money - it is extremely comprehensive - provides a great deal of security that the City has never had in the issuance of any bonds - he had in mind the bonds that were Sold to finance Local Improvement No. 185 in that case there were three or four hundred thousand bonds that are in jeopardy to the improvements and the person who owes the most on those obligations has Green Acres Land and in that case there are no or little money to pay the bonds - if Mr. Feely does not develop his property, somewhere along the line we will have to levy money to repay those bonds - they will be repaid at the time the land develops. In that case we have the security in the land and it could take seven years for it to go tax forfeit before the City would actually sell the land to secure the money, but in the case of Feelys it could go many years before the land develops - in that case we have no personal guarantees at from the developers - in this case we have guarantees in their financial statements which discloses about 18 million dollars of personal assets that we could use to secure for the bonds. There is also a provision that to secure the completion of the developer's improve- ments on his site - the golf course and related facilities and because of that it is only done, the developer has agreed to escrow 1.25 million dollars with the First National Bank of Stillwater to secure that being done. There are approximately 1.3 million shares of Apogee Corporation that have been deposited with the First National Bank as the escrow agent - that escrow has been executed by the First National Bank and the Developer - there is security in the bank as far as the golf course being completed - there is security in the form of personal promises of the developers to secure repayment of the bonds - he felt that everything had been covered to protect the community and the taxpayers to prevent an obligation on this project. COUNCILWOMAN AVISE asked if there had been any changes other than paragraph 7.3 which the Council had talked about earlier that have changed from the previous copy that had been submitted to the Council. MR. MAGNUSON stated that the prior agreement stated it would be recorded upon execution and agreed with the Council and the developers that it will be recorded if so requested in writing by the City. He did not feel that it has to be recorded as this time and it kinds of encumbers the records up there but if the City sees ® a need to have it recorded, they can notify them in writing and it will be accomplished. That is the only change except with some minor grammer changes and composition. • / • • • • • October 6, 1981 COUNCILWOMAN AVISE was surprised that the financial statements were not certified and audited and she did a lot of checking and reading and thinking about this agreement and she realized that the total net worth listed there was 18 million of documents h kinds andthe performance t of t the devel per she t has reached the conclusion that it is okay. MR. LANGNESS stated that he was pleased with the way this has worked out - the City has also transferred its risk to the developer for the oversizing of the improvements which will benefit land outside of the City which may or may not in the future develop but for the best interest of the City are in there and they do not beenefit the developer; however, he has assumed that risk, and he felt that this was highly unique and he is pleased with the performance of the developer. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman MacDonald, a resolution was introduced "APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, GUARANTY AND ESCROW AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF STILLWATER AND OAK GLEN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY" and authorizing the Mayor and the Clerk to sign this agreement. AYES -- Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS- -None (see resolutions) 2. The City Clerk presented to the Council affidavits showing publication in the official newspaper and the Commercial West of notice of sale of $6,100,000 General Obligation Temporary Improvement Bonds of 1981, Series A, for which sealed bids were to be received and considered at this meeting in accordance with Resolution No. 6976 adopted by the City Councol on September 8, 1981. Said affidavits were examined and found satisfactory and directed to be placed on file. The Coordinator then announced that one (1) sealed bid had been received pursuant to said notice of call for bids, that the bids had been opened, read and tabulated, and that the highest and best bid of each bidder was found to be as follows: Bidder Coupons Price Net Interest Cost & Rate The First National Bank of St. Paul 10.00% November $ 1 $1,890,390.00 , $1,890,390.0 Bancnorthwest (10.3300%) ,.0 American National Bank and Trust Company of St. Paul Allison - Williams Company Blyth Eastman, Paine Webber, Inc. Cronion & Marcotte, Inc. First National Bank of Minneapolis E. F. Hutton & Co., Inc. Merrill Lynch White Weld Capital Markets Group Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Inc. Dougherty, Dawkins, Strand & Yost, Inc. Juran & Moody, Inc. Marquette National Bank Moore, Juran and Company, Inc. M. H. Novick & Company, Inc. (see motion below) Net Interest Bidder (See page 6 for minutes) Coupons Price Cost & Rate The First National Bank 10.00% November 1, 1984 of St. Paul $386,139.00 $120,861.00 Bancnorthwest (10.3300%) American National Bank & Trust Company of St. Paul Allison - Williams Company Blyth Eastman, Paine Webber, Inc. Cronin & Marcotte, Inc. First National Bank of Minneapolis E. F. Hutton & Company, Inc. Merrill Lynch White Weld Capital Markets Group Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Inc. Dougherty, Dawkins, Strand & Yost, Inc. Juran & Moody, Inc. Marquette National Bank Moore, Juran and Company, Inc. M. H. Novick & Company, Inc. On motion of Councilperson Bodlovick, seconded by Councilperson Avise, a resolution was introduced "Authorizing the Issuance, Awarding Sale, Fixing the Form and Details and Providing for the Payment of $6,100,000 General Obligation Temporary Improvement Bonds of 1981, Series A ". AYES -- Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilman MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) • • • • • J October 6, 1981 The City Clerk presented to the Council affidavits showing publication of the official newspaper and the Commercial West of notice of sale of $390,000 General Obligation Temporary Improvement Bonds of 1981, Series A, for which sealed bids were to be received and considered at this meeting in accordance with Resolution No. 6972 adopted by the City Council on September 1, 1981. Said affidavits were examined and found satisfactory and directed to be placed on file. The Coordinator then announced that one (1) sealed bid had been received pursuant to said notice of call for bids, that the bids had been opened, read and tabulated, and th:: the highest and the best bid of each bidder was found to be as follows: (see page 6 for the bid tabulation) On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Peterson, a resolution was introduced "AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, AWARDING SALE, FIXING THE FORM AND DETAILS AND PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF $390,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1981, SERIES B ". AYES -- Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) 3. MR. ELLIOTT recommended the bid be awarded to C. W. Houle, Inc. for Local Improve- ments 184, 189 and 149. MR. KRIESEL stated that Mr. Parker is concerned about the high cost of his project and he asked Mr. Parker to go out and get another quote for the work that is to be done there - the estimate that the City has is approximately $6,700 - Joe Gould has been asked to give this quote and would like to have a few days to that and he would authorize the Council to go ahead and award the contract for all three improvements. MR. ELLIOTT stated that it could be deleted by a change order and MR. MAGNUSON concurred with this recommendation. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilwoman Avise, a resolution was introduced "AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT NOS. 184, 189 and 149 TO C. W. HOULE, INC.', ST. PAUL AT A BID PRICE OF $3,497,614.00 ". AYES -- Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS- -None (see resolutions) NEW BUSINESS 1. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Bodlovick, the Council asked that the City seek acquisition of the twenty foot by 100 foot piece of property in the Radles Sunny Slope Addition which has gone tax forfeit (10965 -242 %0 and other recommended parcels. (all in favor) 2. There was discussion about making final payment to Arcon Construction for the work on Local Improvement No. 185 and the Council agreed that this payment should be withheld pending the outcome of the problem regarding the quantities of fill that were taken from the Charter Oaks Development. 3. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Avise, the claim from Chad Gardner involving an arrest on September 6, 1981 was referred to the McGarry - Kearney Insurance Agency. (all in favor) 4. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Peterson,a resolution was introduced "DIRECTING THE PAYMENT OF THE BILLS deleting the payment to Arcon and adding the payments for the assessment appeals, and the $25.00 fee for the DNR permitfor the Oak Glen Development, and the payment for two easements (Fischer and Reichow). AYES -- Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) 5. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Avise, the Council set the date of OCTOBER 20, 1981 AT 7:30 P. M. for the public hearings for the following Planning Commission cases: Case No. 429 - John and Pauline Dahl, Special Use Permit for property at 210 East Lurel Case No. 430 - Douglas Wahlquist, 1007 North Owens Street - Special Use Permit for an over -sized garage Case No. 431 - John M. Williams, 1302 North Broadway - Special Use Permit to convert a single family home into a duplex (all in favor) 6. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilwoman Avise, a resolution was introduced "ADOPTING THE TAX LEVY FOR THE YEAR 1982" in the amount of $1,404,082. AYES -- Councilwoman Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) • • • • • October 6, 1981 7. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilwoman Avise, a resolution was introduced "CHANGING CERTAIN MANDATORY LEVIES ". AYES -- Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) INDIVIDUALS & DELEGATIONS. JOHN CALDWELL stated that their objection to assessments for Local Improvement No. 185 was just to keep their options open - did not mean that they are going to pursue it toward Litigation, - they also have on deposit in the joint name with the City of Stilwaer csh assessmentslandtfelta that u l thiswas good t security 0 as a financial estat of the statement. APPLICATIONS seconded by Councilwoman Avise, the following On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, y all in favor) Contractor's Licenses were approved: Carroll Fuhr Trenching Excavators New 12202 Otchipwe Avenue, Stillwater Haines Tree Service, Inc. 9262 Otchipwe Avenue N., Stillwater Tree Trimmers Renewal Junker Landscaping 1001 N. Fourth Street, Stillwater Excavators /Landscapers Renewal Wayne's Home Repair & Remodeling 3531 - 173rd Lane N. W., Anoka, Mn. 55303 General New COMMUNICATIONS - -From North Country Beer Whobsalers, St. Paul regarding the parkingregulations on North Main Street. MR. VAN WORMER reported on the removal of the parking on North Main Street between Myrtle and Commercial and the turn lanes. The removal of the three parking meters on the west side was done because there was no objection at the public hearings and now there are complaints about the lack of parking and he felt that these people should document their lack of sales because of this - (He distributed a short report to the Council for their review). He stated that we could put the three meters back in and it could be a loading zone or short -term parking and he did not feel that this would create any operational problems at all. The Council directed that he get letters of documentation from each of these businesses and he will deliver them to the Minnesota Department of Transportation. CITY CLERK'S REPORT None CITY COORDINATOR'S REPORT. 1. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilwoman Avise, the Council authorized Mr. Kriesel to advertise for bids for the sale of the Burroughs L -3000 in both the League magazine and the Stillwater Gazette and the Twin Cities papers. (all in favor) 2. On motion of Councilwoman Avise, seconded by Councilman MacDonald, the Council authorized Mr. Kriesel to pay back to David Johnson, if the bond proceeds come in before November 1st to pay him the difference between the amount that he has already paid the City less the $50,000 owing the City for the park dedication fees. (all in favor) 3. MR. KRIESEL informed tgg it of the background and facts regarding the use of the Sergant's car for the brff22EEer since the cost of the rental had increased consider- ably and this is being done at this time. The cost that the City is going to charge the School District for the use of that automobile - currently we are getting 49% which is approximately $44.00 per month for a nine month period - he will check out the figures and see if they are willing to continue to pay the same figure for this arrangement and he will confer with Mr. Kenneth Peterson on this matter. 4. MR. KRIESEL presented the Cable T. V. Agreement to the Council and that the committee be set by November 1st - it is possible that there will be some personnel changes made - the same people that have been studying this franchising process for the last year and a half or two years if they are not the same people that are going to be making the award, it is best that they be brought in at this time so that they can be brought up -to -date - there will be some changes because there are two representatives from Bayport, neither of those people are Council members and the agreement calls for at least one person (one member) being a Council member All of the three attorneys (continued on page 9 ) • • • 4 • • IMO l.J October 6, 1981 CONSULTING ENGINEER'S REPORT 1. Mr. Elliott informed the Council that they had the pre- construction conference on Monday morning, October 5th - the contractor is prepared to start with four separate crews on the project - he will not let them start without the signed contract and without Mr. Magnuson reviewing the insurance certificate. 2. MR. ELLIOTT introduced Ken Meister who will be doing the impsection on the Oak Glen Project and also Bob Glasgow will be inspecting the project. COMMITTEE REPORTS have reviewed it and they are satisfied with the contents of the Joint Powers Agreement and this is the Advisory Committee's recommendation. There was discussion on this membership and the term of the agreement - the only input the City would have is what the Council representative would bring back to the Council. MR. MAGNUSON stated that as far as membership the statute does provide that there statute dictates the e number f that e serves s on you can't ask t for s the more representation. MR. KRIESEL stated that the Advisory Committee feels that this is the best thing that could be developed in the situation - he did not see this as being the trouble- some area and did not know what could surface to make it an uncomfortable arrangement. It has been approved by the communities. There was discussion about membership and whether it should be two council - people or one member from the general public and it was the general feeling that it should be two council - People. There was discussion about the term of the agreement and MR. MAGNUSON explained that the franchise continues effective regardless of the Joint Powers Agreement - the Cable TV companies prefer a fifteen year term contract franchise - they did needs thetthreecdiifffferents should could be different'- it wa time - the was felt that the agreement should be setup so that it works and the decision was delayed until the October 20th meeting. 5 KRIESEL informed nf r:ed t heMCouncil that there will be a Budget meeting on Tuesday, Oct PUBLIC SAFETY l was iintroddced "AUTHORIZING tTH HE Eo INSTALLATION bOFC Avise, resolution motion of Councilman SENIOR CITIZENPARKINGMETERON THE WEST SIDE OF MYRTLE STREET ". (The last meter before Main Street) AYES -- Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS- -None (see resolutions) 2. was introduced " AUTHORIZINGeTHEnINSTALLATIONyOFOA THIRTY a MILE 1 SPEED LIMIT SIGNS ON SOUTH GREELEY STREET FROM WEST ORLEANS TO HIGHWAY 36 ". AYES -- Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilmen MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS- -None (see resolutions) 3. CHIEF limit signs onOCounty about speed warning signs further south. 4. an dEThompssoon Hardware MR. diSCussed that behind iencing with installing meters in that area because of the old coal bins, etc. and the cost could amount to $300.00 per meter as opposed to $60 in other locations and the possibility of having them knocked off. MR. SHELTON was directed to check into seeing what can be done about getting some meters installed in this area, and that the curbing be checked out. 5 CHEF l in needofofSrrepairoandd sidewalkon the taken care of side of the near Station future. 6. and EHawthhorneSwhichpshouldtbetremovedland Mr. Blekum is stop sign removenito and with his equipment - Mayor Junker will move the tree to the other party's yard. • • • • PUBLIC WORKS . 1. MR. SHELTON reported that he will have the quotes for the sewer repair on Hickory Street between Fourth and Second and the property owners have agreed to put in a road to get into the sewer and make the necessary repairs, and he will have the quotes for the next regular meeting. 2. MR. SHELTON stated that he had a letter from Ken Lockesmoe from the DNR asking what the City itends to do with the delta build -up at Nelson Street in the St. Croix River. It is up to the Cnuncil to give him direction on this matter and also the delta at Lily Lake and the costs involved in dredging or the removal of same and this could cost $6,000 to $7,000 and he could not make an estimate on the one at the Nelson Street left station. Questions were raised about the City's responsibility on the St. Croix River and MR. MAGNUSON felt that we do not have any - MAYOR JUNKER felt that we should just take care of the one at Lily Lake and MR. BLEKUM felt that it was an asset to the river since it attracts the fish and boats moor t ere. MAYOR JUNKER asked Mr. Shelton to get additional quotes on the removal of the one at Lily Lake since the City did promise the property owners that this would be taken care from time to time. 3. MR. SHELTON stated that they have not put the barricades on West Orleans from County 5 to Washington Avenue, but he did obtain permission from the property owners adjoining the blacktopping that this will be agreeable to them and he would like to see some publicity in the paper regarding them. PARKS & RECREATION No report October C, 1981 CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 1. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman Pete and authorizing resolution was introduced "APPROVING LECUYER- REICHOW ANNEXATION PETITION ", 8 one signing of same. AYES -- Councilwomen Avise and Bodlovick, Councilman MacDonald and Peterson and Mayor Junker NAYS - -None (see resolutions) (Mr. Magnuson reported that the actual flows for this property was included with the flow projections for the Oak Glen Development so that the Council could proceed with this annexation and then if the Metro Council has any objections they can voice same at the Municipal Commission hearing). 2. MR. MAGNUSON presented the information on the Reichow easement for the Oak Glen Improvement which was appraised by Mr. Kirchner and also the easement for the Mrs. Eugene Fischer and Morrie Andrewsen appraised this property and it will be $5,000 per acre for the taking and he recommended that would be an agreeable sum to pay for these easements. Bichow's have agreed to settle for this amount and in addition they would like some sloping in their yard - 1.663 acres from them and that would amount to $8,315 and Pethow and on Mrs. Fischer, she has agreed to settle for a sum of $4,755 which is less than an acre - she would like a couple of stubs to be agreed upon by her to be stubbed into the property as the sewer and water go by and those would be recoverable on connection charges and she wants a fence along the west side of some kind and felt that this could be worked out. Also there is Danny Schubert who will be back in town on Thursday and he will negotiate with him on his piece and then there is one by Mr. Purdy's property which was formerly owned by John Trent by Neal Avenue where the City needs another sixty feet - they made an offer to him at the same figure as the others and it amounts to about $5,000, but he wants $16,000 and he requested authorization to start condem- nation proceedings. On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilwoman Avise, the Council accepted the easement figures for Reichow and Fischer and authorized payment and to include in the Fischer payment the appraisal fees. (all in favor) On motion of Councilwoman Bodlovick, seconded by Councilman MacDonald, the City Attorney was authorized to start condemnation proceedings for the Richard Purdy easement on Neal Avenue. (all in favor) COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS None QUESTIONS FROM PRESS REPRESENTATIVES None - • • 1 4 1 IMMO ORDINANCES None October 6, 1981 RESOLUTIONS The following resolutions were read and on roll call were unanimously adopted: 1. Directing the Payment of the Bills. 2. Awarding the Bond Sale for $6,100,000 3. Awarding the Bond Sale for $390,000. 4. Adopting the Assessment Roll for Local Improvement No. 185 (Feely Plat Utilities, etc.) 5. Adopting the Assessment Roll for Local Improvement No. 166 and Re- Assessments. 6. Approving Oak Glen Agreement and Authorize Signing 7. Awarding eOBi ngthd, for orcLocal Improvement Nos. 184, 189 and 149 - C. 8. Adopting the Tax Levy for 1982 9. Mandatory Tax Levies for 1982 (Changing) 10. Installation of Senior Citizens Meter - West side of Myrtle by Main Street 11. Thirty Mile Speed Limit on South Greeley Posting - Orleans to Highway 36 12. Apprvving Lecuyer- Reielow Annexation Petition. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman MacDonald, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 P. M. Attest:_,24 — r CitlClerk Mayor 1I • • • •