Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-05-25 CC MIN . 74 . COUNCIL CHAMBER Stillwater. Minnesota Mcl.y 25, 1971 7:30 P. M. REGULAR MEETING The meeting was called to order by President Powell. The Invocation was given by the city coordinator, Marshall. Present: Councilmen Balfanz, Lammers, Peterson, Wohlers and President Powell Absent: None Also Present: City Coordinator, Marshall~ City Attorney, Kimmel: Superintendent of Public Works, Shelton: Director of Public Safety, Abrahamson: consulting Engineer, Elliott: Director of Parks and Recreation, Blekum: Representative for Clark Stations, Ken McCarthy: Bonding Consultant, Springsted. Press: Stillwater Evening Gazette - Mrs. Gaffney St. Paul Dispatch - Jim Breede WAVN - Mike McGrath Citizens: Joseph Simonet, Ray peltier. Al Bergen, John Theissen, Nicholas Nelson, John Herschleb, Howard costello, Donald Junker, Ray Roemich, D. J.. Valsik, Jerry Mahoney, Ed Larson, Bud Jagusch, wendell Beardsley, Alex Kraemer, Dr. Fred Kalinoff, Franklin Peterson, Gerald Galowitz, Gordon Smit~, Richard Jeans, Delmar pauley, Dan Lyons UNFINISHED BUSINESS (out of order) This was the day and time set for a hearing on a propos~d Special Use Permit and Variances for the Clark Oil and Refining corpo~ation, Case No. 100. The notice for hearing was published in the Stillwater Evening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City on May 14, 1971 and mailed to all known property owners within 300 feet. The Mayor opened the hearing. (The Planning commmssion recommended to approved subject to the opinion of the Fire Marshall considering the fire and May 17, 1971). the Council that this application be Public safety Director and the City traffic hazards involved - meeting 0 Mr. Joseph Simcnet, 120 West Chestnut Street spoke in opposition of this proposed gas station which would be located at the corner of Third and Myrtle Street. He was opposed to the lights especially with it being open all night and also because of the traffic problems in this particular intersection with exists already. He also stated that he had talked to most of the other people in the area and they were also opposed to it. r . . C' L, r I '-' c.. --- ,~ . (May 25, 1971 - continued) r> . Councilman Lammers asked that the council be given more information about what was being proposed for this location and the variances involved. , l Mr. Ken McCarthy from Clark explaineo that this would be an all night station with special lights, the larger of which would be turned off at 10 P. M. (At this time the CGuncil reviewed with Mr. Mccarthy the detailed plans for this station). Chief Abrahamson reported that as far as he was concerned the existing church was more of a hazard than the new station because of the setback, and as far as traffic control there are three stop signs at this intersection at the present t~.me. For the cars coming down it would be a right ham turn, and there are two bad situations at the present time on this corner - the church and the Legion Club. ,-, Mr. Al Bergen stated he was representing the presbyterian Church and that he had been working on the sale of this property for about two years and they have been looking for a buyer of an approved use for this site and this is something that they would want. He did not know what would be better to be put in there. This would remove the building and clean the corner up and also get some tax money out of this property which has never paid taxes. He did not know hat the people would recommend for that particular corner. Mr. McCarthy stated that they have been in business for over 38 years and they have many problems like everybody else but they have never closed a service station. He felt that their station would be an asset to this community. This would be a service station without mechanical repair service and they would also 8ell cases of soft drinks, ice and in the summertime charcoal. All stations are well supervised by their territorial managers. They :are dealer operated and would hope to have a dealer from the local area and the earnings of the station would stay in the Stillwater area. The pumps are filled 90% of the time during the night. councilman Balfanz questioned why they happened to pick this spot for their stat:.ion and Mr. McCarthy replied that they felt that they could do good business on this corner. They had made a traffic count at this location and felt it was a good location, and the estimated taxes would be roughly $3,900.00 per year. He also~ated that they have on file the inspection by the State Fire Marshal. They anticipate about $25,000 or $30,000 per month for this station, by servicing 200 to 250 cars per day. The variances requested are for 2.6 feet on the South side or the back of the station next to the Auto Parts Building. Chief Abrahamson stated that the last traffic count was taken two months ago and there were 2,000 cars in a 24 hour period on Myrtle Street. The storage tanks would be located about 100 feet from the Post Office Building which is more than those at the Texaco Station across from the old Post Office Building. Ray peltier, 119 West Chestnut St~eet also spoke in opposition to this proposed filling station because of the noise of the hot-rodders at night and he was strongly opposed to another filling station below his house. ~ Dr. Fred Xa1inoff of the Planning Commission stated they took everything into consideration ar.d he was questioned as to why the other station in that area was denied a request to expand their business some years back but no one seemed to ha ve the answer for this. Chief Abrahamson did state that Gulf wanted to move the station over and build a new building for the auto parts store but they did not want to be out of business while this building was under construction - they wanted the auto business and the church property. Councilman Peterson asked if the residents in the area had any other suggestions as to what this property should be used for. Joseph simonet thought that possibly an apartment house and felt that the church should be left there until something else comes up within a reasonable time and he was sure something would come up. ... v . 75 . , ~. . . , ~ . I 76 . (May 25, 1911 - co~tinued) The Mayor closed the hearing at 8:10 P. M~ On motion of councilman Lammers, seconded by cnuncilman Peterson that the request of the Clark Oil and Refining Corporation for a Special Use Permit and variances be denied based on the traffic hazard problems and the detriment to the residential area in question.. (aU in favor).. UNFINISHED BUSINESS {out of orderi The city Clerk presented to the council proposed forms of notice of sale for $255,000 Municipal State-Aid street Bonds of 1971 and $690,000 Improvement Bonds of 1971.. The forms of notice were considered and approved by the council. and the clerk was directed to file them in his office and to attach copies thereof to the minutes of this meeting_ councilman wohlers then introduced Resolution No. 4594. entitled "Resolution providing for Issuance and Public Sale of $255.000 Municipal state-Aid Street Bond of 1971 and $690.000 Improve- ment Bonds of 1971." and moved its adoption. councilman Balfanz seconded the motion ano upon vote being taken thereon. the following voted in favor thereof: All members present _ Councilmen Balfanz. Lammers. Peterson. Wohlers and presioent powell ano the following voted against the same: None whereupon the resolution was declared adopted by the required 4/5 vote. (see resolutions) . UNFINISHED BUSINESS (out of order) This was the day and time set to continue the hearing on proposed assessments for Local Improvement Nos. 78_79_80_84_85_86_87__1969. (Original hearing was on April 20. 1971). Mr. Elliott explained the council action on the assess~~nt rolls for Local Improvement Nos. 78-79-80-84 and he removed from the cost of the assessment the cost of the storm sewers on all of these projects. and on #78 there is the extra cost for the c~st of the right-of-way which was left in as an assessed cost.That cost is the only difference between this project and Local Improvement Nos. 79-80-84. The front foot cost on pine T1ee Trail is $14.36 per foot and on the other projects is is $13.01 per front foot. John Theissen 1003 Pine Tree Trail I would like to request that Mr. Elliatt provide some more of the detailed facts on the four projects. What the drainage costs are when broken down for the four projects? Mr. Elliott: The drainage costs of all four of these projects is borne by the city. John Theissen: We should be able to get a breakdown such as the wide difference between the estimate and the actual cost of this project? Mr. Elliott: The original cost reflected 2~ participation by the city. Also since May of last year there has been a 22% increase in construction costs. This is in the Minneapolis area. on the preliminary estimates on the project and the final cost on the original storm sewer we are somewhat lower than the final cost assessments for the storm sewer. Mr. Theissen; On the basis of the figure that we have here. the pine Tree Trail project is in the neighborhood of $80,000 and the estimate for the four projects was $131.000.00. r ("' \" ~ L ,- ! '- L '-' . . . r . . r-- ~- , r- '--, .... . v (May 25, 1971 - continued) councilman Lammers: I think the question is well taken. I don't recall if the original estimate was $131,000 on this project. Mr. Elliott: The basic policy of 3~ assessment for the side yards puts 65% back into the cost figures and this substantially affects all of the project. This reduces the footage and raises the cost per foot. Mr. Kimmel reported that according to the notice of hearing on the 1969 street program the total estimated coal of all of these projects was $315.000.00. Mr. Theissen: This particular job was bid in the fall of 1969. work commenced on the Lake Drive project that fall and after the work was statted the Council changed the procedure of paying 25% on the street. Nicholas Nelson 811 pine Tree Trail Mr. Elliott made a statement about the City picking up the cost of the road easements a Mr. Blliott: My statement was that the City picked up the cost of the storm sewers. The matter of the right-of-way was put into the pine Tree Trail project and this increases it by ~l.35 per foot. Mra Nelson: Also you have picked up 527 feet on th~.s job from the last figure a Mr. Kimmel: We are assessing Mr. Benson differently than on the first time for property within the City of Stillwater. Mr. Nelson: What caused you to change your minds? Mr. Kimmel: The engineer wasn't aware that we had done this in the past. Mr. Nelson: The City picked up the cost of the storm sewers. and also a policy of picking up 25% of the rest of the costs a Mr. Kimmel: The improvement hearing is not the assessment hearing ano in the process of the construction of this project the City changed their minds after the contracts were awarded. They had changed their minds after the project was started. From their action - that is the action that presumably be taken this evening, really make up their minds until this evening, although they have previously instructed the engineer and clerk to prepare all future assessment rolls on this basis. Mra Nelson: Why are you doing one and not the other? Mra Kimmel: It is not for me to say. It is more or less of a compromise made at the hearing. I recall at tho_hearings the City Council said they would take the shortest route possible for the storm sewers. councilman Lammers: It wae my understanding. and I might be wrong, that there was a probl6m with the original notice as we did not specificially mention storm sewers in the original notice. There was no doubt that there was a street involved. This is why and not a compromise. Mr. Nelson: The Council has changed its policy - I assume you could go back and reassess streets done three years ago. Mr. Kimmel: This evening is technically determining the amount of benefit to the property they are a~sessing but not to ~gceed the actual cost of the project. The decision they are legally making is the amount of benefit to your property. When they levied assessments two years ago, they paid 25% of the cost and the determination this is the extent to which this property was benefited. Mr. Nelson: We at the hearing relied on this - the cost of the project has increased. 77 . . . . 78 . (May 25. 1971 - continued) Mra Kimmel: Basically, two years ago when the Council made the decision to put in this street. a petition was filed by the residents, the Council voted on the improvement and the determination was made to go ahead with this improvement - they ordered the improvement and ord~red the~~gineer to proceed with plans and specifications. Basically, the Council made a determination whether or not this was a good project. Basically, you wouldn't have wanted the street if you had to pay 100%. Mr. Nelson: What is Council procedure if there is a la~ge difference in the estimated cost and the bids received? Do you have another hearing? Mr. Kimmel: I do not recall of having another hearing. These bids did not come in higher. Mr. Elliott: The totalanount of the projects that we are hearing tonite is $321,000.00. As it applies to the two projects which we are discussing now, namely 78 and 79-80-84 combined, this cost was $131,000.00 esimated and the cost in the assessment roll is $128,000.00. The difference is on some policy changes. Mr. Nelson: The cost of the storm sewer is $44,000.00 and the cost on Pine Tree Trail was $24,000.00. If the Council approves this, as it appears would happen, then what or when does the property owner get assessed and how can it be paid? Mr. Kimmel: If the Council approved the assessment roll, the property owners have 30 d~ys to pay without interest. Prom June 25th to October 10th you can pay the full with interest to the time of payment, and you can continue to pay until November 15th but interest is figured through December 31, 1971. After November 15th the assessment would have to be paid with your taxes with one- tenth of the total with interest for about l~ years. Mayor Powell: In the beginning of 1970 when we were reviewing the budget for the number of ye~.rs back when we paid 25% of the street projects, we felt it was the appropriate time to make the change. This happened to be in progress with other projects in 1970. At the time it was thought that the assessment roll would be prepared in 1970. It was unfortunate that it was not. The time delay was because of the late :t."sessments. This was a good time to do it. You have a C,ut-off period and when you are figuring a budget, that has to be the time. I feel, and I am sure the Council does, this is the policy. Mr. Nelson: Did the budget include the cost of the storm sewer? Mayor Powell: No, it did not. Mr. Elliott: The storm sewer cost was $44,000.00 for the four projects _ there was $24,000.00 on Pine Tree Trail only. Some $7,000.00 of storm sewers and catch basins totalling $31,000.00 and that is the cost of storm sewers that the City will bear. Councilman Lammers: I think in fairness to a position, basically when we discussed this 100% for major reconstruction throughout the City was the only feasible t~ay to do it. The primary concern is the overall improvement of the Ci~y streets. Pine Tree Trail was not specifically in mind when we made this decision. John Herschleb 803 Pine Tree Trail I just want to say a word about this 25% that the City had been paying. It was a good idea at the time and why is it not a good idea now. The 25% payment by the City and in turn paid by the taxpayers at large in the City would encourage the building of new streets - encourage the people to have their streets paved. Every time you pave a street the City saves money. We have too much maintenance and yet we have too little maintenance. Why can't we reinstate this 25% and finance it with a mill levy for this purpose. , 1"...- r r , . . ..., . . . (May 25, 1971 - continue~) I""' .... Mayor Powell: The 25% was put in during Andy Madsen's term of office and they did this for the specific purpose as you stated to increase the streets that would be petitioned for, but it didntt work. That had no bearin~ at allan having the street work done. Because of that the city adopted a policy that we would have a survey of the streets that should be done with the 25% prepaid by the city and this comes as a direct mill levy and because of that we still couldn't afford to participate by the 25% but it didn't increase any of the street work. The streets that are giving us the problems were not being petitioned for. We had very poor construction of streets - we did have traffic and heavy school busses and have to build better streets. We hope that with our street program that we will upgrade our street program. B7 the time we get through everybody will have participated 100%. Mr. Herschleb: It would have heen nice to have a little warning about it. You are obligated to do it - it i~ slightly underhanded. ,.-.., Mayor powell: For a period of nine years that 29% was in effect. only for that short period - before that it was 100%. They did want to get the street program going, but it did not prove that way. Howard costello 1007 pine Tree Trail I^""j Listening to the discussion tonite, I am mainly concerned, even though the statements and decisions made by the Council at an earlier ~earing are not binding, there should be some obligation morally. We petitioned to put in a street and were led to believe from the original estimate that the cost would be $7.99 per foot. This cost got to $21.00 per foot and then down to $14.00. When this policy was made it was very unfortunate there was not some time element in it for all of the projects in process. I think you are losing faith with the taxpayers when certain statements are made even though they are legally binding. I just felt I should voice my opinion. Haw the fact that it was budget time is not an excuse either. I would just like to say the Council should keep faith with the taxpayer. Mayor Powell: still have had as possible. If we had projected the increase to 100% for one year, we would objection from the people. We like to keep the mill levy as low Donald Junker 1717 West pine Street I would just like to ask what my costs will be on the corner? -- Mr. Elliott: $589.76 and $1,920.71. u Mr. Junker: On pine Street I paid $7.50 for a concrete street. '-' Mayor Powell: pine Street is a State-Aid street. When that was done the going price for a residential street was $7.50 per foot that long ago. Now the going price for a residential street is $12.50. The council feel. because you live on a State-Aid Street that you couldn't get it free and we have settled for an average residential street even though you get a higher priced street. That was the same for Fourth, Myrtle, pine and Greeley street. We would like to do that with the County-Aid Streets also. I feel that people on the County streets should not get them free. Mr. Junker: What percentage do I pay on? Mr. Elliott: You are paying on 134.42 and 41.06 feet. Mr. Theissen: Mr. Elliott has provided the figure and it is evident that the figure is very near to the bid and I am not in full agreement of this. The reason there was such difference is mainly due to the change in the 25% City pay policy, the job was estimated at $8.00 per foot and now the assessments exceed $13.00 per foot. Could the minutes be checked out as to how many jobs were in progress when this decision was made? I had heard from an individual who had been at a public hearing in the spring of 1970 that out in wild pines that they were the first job in which this policy would apply. Could this be checked out? v . 79 . . . . 80 . . (May 25. 1971 - continued) Mr. Kimmel: Crestwood Terrace was the first job to be ~ssessed 100%. Ray Roemich 301 Crestwood Terrace The City of Stillwater owns the Lot 14 on our street which is 99.06 feet. What percentage is the City picking up on this? Mayor Powell: It is the policy of the City not to include the City owned property in the total front footage. Mr. Roemich: At whose discretion and who do you feel should be assessed for a public park? Mayor Powell: As I understand it, it is a policy of the city that they ta~e thr assessable front footage and divide the cost by that and the City's front footage is not assessed. Mr. Roemich: on Meadowlark used? Are 10 or 15 of us on Crestwood Terrace to pay for this frontage Park and the condition of this park is SUCQ that it cannot be Mr. Elliott: Assessments on Crestwood Terrace are $10.00 per tront foot exclusive of any participation by the City. Councilman Lammers: I was not aware that this was City policy. I question if it is our legal right to abide by this procedure. It is often very arbitrary just because they are involved in a project in ~hich City owned property is involved. Mr. Roemich: If this would make my property look better, I ",ould not mind. Do you know what the property looks like? The people were not ~onsulted if they wanted to take that. You own it. It is a useless piece ot property. Bither you take care of it or give it back to the 9uy who gave it to you. I am not going to pay - it is public property - let them pa~ for it. Now is a good time to start - some other things have been started. Mayor Powell: We do intend to . Mr. Roemich: Absolutely 'nothing has been done. Mayor Powell: At cne time we di-scontinued issuing building permits _ that is as far as it has gotten. We can stop issuing building permits. Mr. Roemich: Has the City of Stillwater accepted it? Mayor Powell: We accepted the park with the provision that it will be in good condition. Mr. Roemich: What are you going to do right now about it? The City and the guy who owned the property in the first place when you too~ the ~roperty, who was going to pay for that street? Mayor Powell: According to the sub-division ordinance the developer must provide a certain amount of land for rec~eation. This is tQ6 f1:st piece of land we have accepted that is not a pond. Mr. Roemich: I think you have something here that is used by the public. How can you single out the ten people on these streHts? Right now there are 15 people that abut that park. Mr. Elliott: The cost if 100% of the abutting property is assessed except the City lot. Bven with the City lot not included the cost is less. Mr. Roemich: We were the first people in the City of Stil1~Qter tQat wanted to pay 10~h. We are also paying 25% of past indebtedness. r r L '- r . . . . r- . r ..~'" 1....-' . v (May 25, 1971 - continued) Mr. Elliott; I made a quick check and if the change was made, it would reduce the front foot cost to $96~7 rather than $10.11. The cost to the City would be about $916.00. o. J. Valsik 2108 Fairmeadows Road The Council had a policy that the assessment would be spread among the people who abut the property and it is not divided by all that abut the property_ Jerry Mahoney 204 Crestwood Terrace I would only repeat what the others have said - I feel that this is a City COGt and it is arbitrary to pick ten people out of the whole City to pay for this. Ed Larson 202 Crestwood Terrace I think it is injustice to put an ~ssessment on a few people. I am sure there have beer. other cases. Mayor Powell; We try to have ad large a project as possible. If a project is paid for as one project - the total assessable feet are there and would not be too hard to get - our policy has been to subtract any city property. Mr. Kimmel: This was probably because of the 25% policy. Mr. Laraon: I do object to having a park back there like that is. We have got no area where the kids can play ball - they have to play in the street. There isn't a park the~e for those kids to play in. I am a contractor _ an electrical contractor - if I don't perform. there is a performance bond. If there is a contractor. he must be bonded in the City. Mayor Powell: He is bonded to build homes. Mr. Kimmel: donated by T sub-divison. He has a license bond. As far as a bond. & L. Inc. and we did suspend the building The City has a contract with T & L. Inc. the park property was pe~mits for the whole for the park. Mr. Larson: I can't see that it is such a big project in getting that levelled off so that something can be done. Mayor Powell: Our Recreational Director insists that it has to be on a slope out there. Mr. Larson: It doesn't take a lot to put that in a useful shape. Mr. Elliott: The park area is considered as a fill area for the materials to be taken out of the street projects. Then there will be some costs for levelling the materials. Mr. Donald Junker questioned his fronting on pine Tree Trail ~nd he was directed to consult with Mr. Elliott on this matter. Bud Jaqusch 525 Brick Street South What is my assessment? Mr. Elliott: $1.647.27 for 126.57 feet. The Mayor closed the hearing. Mayor Powell: There is the condition of Meadowlark Park. Could the work be done and \"e assess them i.f they do not pay for the improvement? Councilman Lammers: I would move that first of all we decline any issuance of future building permits to T & L in Fairmeadows, and secondly. that we instruct the City Attorney to check any and all action regarding the stipulations that we have with T & L on this park. 81 82 (May 25, 1971 - continued) councilman Wohlers seconded the motion. (all in favor). Councilman Peterson: I wo~ld move that the Consulting Engineer be instructed to refigure the reassessment footage on crestwood Terrace to include the 99.06 fe~t owned by the city ane come up with the new front foot assessment, and move to introduce a resolution for the adoption of all the assessment rolls for Local Improvement Nos. 78-79-80-84-85-86-87--1969 that the city be assessed for the 99.06 feet on crestwood Terrace. Councilman Balfanz seconded the mo~ion. (all in favor) (see resolutions). (The interest rate for these assessment rolls was set at 7%). The matter of a petition for the improvement of RlVERVIE.'W DRIVE was tabled until this evening from the May 11, 1971 meeting. The property owners affected by this improvement were notified of this hearing. The City coordinator read a letter from wendell Beardsley, Reginald E. Meade and Alexander Kraemer regarding this improvement. (see letter in the improvement file). councilman Lammers: We have had a similar problem with pine Tree Trail and in the event that we put in this street, I would hope that we could avoid that. It is too easy to put in the street without having discussion on the assess- ment problem. I would guess that from Mr. Beardsley's letter and the other two property owners it is apparent there is no objection. Wendell Beardsley 1412 Riverview Drive We are the three that are mainly con~ned with this situation~ What is the practice to assess for interior lots? We are practically in the same situation. We will have very limited use. We had a meeting with Mr. Elliott about putting in a different type of street and this should be considered. There is no need for a 34 foot wide street. Assessments are made on the basis of the value as determined by use of the improvement. We are interior lots or off-street lots in the area. We have no objection to the improvement but we are concerned as to how it will be assessed. Franklin Peterson will not be an interior lot on this assessment. perhaps consideration could be given to the value that we will be receiving from this street. Franklin Peterson 1323 North First Street I border on Riverview Drive - benefit is to Fred Kalinoff. not have ~o make a payment on that lot is 100 feet down the curve. The only I am completely cut off from there and should this street. Dr. Fred Kalinoff 1419 Riverview Drive Naturally, J am for the street. I would like to have Duane Elliott design it and inspect it - what he feels is necessary to put in there. It is true there are four families going to live on the street. Those families will have some friends that use the street. We couldntt have company if we had an 18 foot street nor a place to turn around nor entering. I think Mr. Elliott should be able to use his judgment as to what is right for it. Mayor Powell: The problem lies in what should be assessed - that is the problem in my mind - that is the problem in the Council's mind. Did Mr. Beardsley, Mr. Meade and Mr. Kraemer buy their property from you? r \' l..- ~ i I - o '-' . . . . . ,-.. . ~ i- v - v .. (May 25. 1971 - continued) Dr. Kalinoff: yes, they did. They all use the street that is there. Every- bocy would have access except this one lot. They all have their easements. cou~_d I give this lot to the City? councilman Lammers: which lot do you make reference to? Dr. Kalinoff: I didn't pay the taxes this past year. Nothing can ever be done ~ith that lot. I had offered it to the City and they refused it. Councilman Lammers: The City would pick up the lot and the assessment for that lot. Dr. Kalinoff: The assessment on that would be from First Street. to pay these assessments for First Street which I have absolutely and my neighbors don't, or do anything for me on Riverview Drive. I am asking no use for Mayor Powell: You couldn't have sold those lots without this. Dr. Kalinoff: Everybody has an easement over that one lot. Councilman Lammers: I feel that your unwillingness to pay not only the taxes and assessments on this you are generally showing something less than good faith on your part. There will be an assessment - no question about that. Dr. Ralinoff: I feel that is one thing that I will have to pay for. Councilman wohlers: Mr. Peterson, how come they changed that lot? Mr. Franklin Peterson: They just went ahead and changed the plans and put a big hill in there. Councilman Lammers: Is it legally possible to assess Mr. Beardsley and hie neighbors on the basis of an interior lot and determine there is no benefit to Mr. Peterson, assess Mr. Kalinoff's lot abutting on this improvement and assess him on a general assessment in the area. Is that possible? Mr. Kimmel: We may have a little trouble getting the street into the project after awarding the contract - might have to have the street in a separate contract. Mr. Elliott: I used number of units in pr1c1ng in this contract - this is a small quantity in view of the large quantity. If it can be pUt in, there are a total of 7 benefiL~d lots - 3 on the East and 4 on the North and West and figuring on an aver~~e assessment it would be in the neighborhood of $900.00 to $1,000.00 per unit. The estimated cost of 520 feet of street would be about $7,000.GO - 7 parcels of land - 3 on the North and 3 on the East could support the cost. Mr. Kimmel: It appears that we could do what you are suggesting on the basis that that is the way the benefits worked out - certain properties are benefited and certain properties are not benefited and could be computed in that way. Councilman Lammers: On that basis at least I would be in favor of seeing this street in the program, just so the understanding is clear. I would move that we order the improvement of Riverview Drive and the assessments for the street be assessed as follows: 3 Lots of Dr. Kalinoff's be assessed $900.00 per lot. Thornton Simpson be assessed at $900.00 4 Lots on the west Side of the street be assessed $900.00 per lot No Assessment to Franklin Peterson Charles Berg to pay full $900.00 on his lot Charles Berg and Dr. Kalinoff also be assessed on First Street. 83 . . . I ~ . ~ ~ 84 . . (May 25. 1971 - continued) Councilman Balfanz seconded the motion. (all in favor). This was agreeable to Dr. Kalinaff, Wendell Beardsley. Alex Kraemer and Reginald Meade.. UNFINISHED BUSINESS lout of order) On motion of Councilman wohlers. seconded by Councilman Balfanz a resolution was introduced awarding the contract for Local Improvement Nos. 98 and 99- 1971. project #1 to the Moelter Construction Company at a bid price of $317.914.20. (see resolutions). On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by councilman wohlers a resolution was introduced awarding the contract for Local Improvement Nos. 98 and 99-1971. project #2 to the Tower Asphalt Co., St. Paul. Minnesota at a bid price of $458,782.00. (see resolutions) a DELEGATIONS OR INDIVIDUALS MRa GERALD GALOWITZ, 710 West Linden Street appeared before the Council in reference to a sewer backup into his basement for about the sixth time that he has 'damage due to such backups, this particular one coming from Everett Street a He requested that the City should examine these sewers before any street work is done on his street. Mr. Elliott said that this could be done by running a TV camera through the line and he felt that this ought to be looked ata On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Wohlers the Superintendent of Public Works and the Consulting Engineer can look at Mr. Galowitz' s problem prior to any permanent improve- ment of the street and report back within thirty days. MR. GORDON SMrr:H, 514 South Hemlock street questioned whether or not the Council was going to consider rules and regulations for Lily Lake and the Mayor informed him that they would be having the second reading of an ordinance on this matter later in the meeting. PETITIONS. From John hnd Gloria Bjugan for the installation of a sewer line in west Hancock Street East of South Everett Street and agreeing to pay all of the costs of s3id installation. On motion of Councilman Lammers, seconded by Councilman wohlers the Consulting Engineer was directed to get estimated costs for the installation of this sewer line in West Hancock Street. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None at this point in the meeting. r- r \. (' ., I....- . ~. ! . . . . . . (May 25, 1971 - continued) r"" NEa'l BUS INESS On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Lammers the following Escrow was approved: $8,000 U. S. Treasury Bills 10/31/71 Trade date - 5/13/71 First National Bank of Minneapolis, Minnesota Yield 4.12 APPLICATIONS n On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by councilman Wohlers a General Contraccing License under Ordinance No. 448 was granted to capp Homes, 3355 Hiawatha, Minneapolis, Minnesota. (new) On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded 3.2 Beer License was granted to Vincent R. North Fourth Street. Stillwate~, M;nnesota by Councilman Wohlers an "Off Sale" Hayes (Country BOy Store), bu8 (new) i~ On motion of Councilman Balfanz, seconded by Councilman Wob~ers a Building Contractor.s License was granted to Robert L. Bird, 805 South First Street, Stillwater, Minnesota. (new). (The Mayor declared a recess from 10:40 to 10:45 P. M.) COMMUNICATIONS From Mrs. Mark Germain requesting an extension of time for the removal of their home at 2015 North Lake Street. - On motion of Councilman Lammers, seconded by Councilman Wohlers that Mrs. Germain be granted another thirty days for the removal of her home and the City Attorney is to advise her of this extension and if the house is not removed by July 1st the City will remove it and assess the cost against the property. Also that the Superintendent of Public Works was instructed that the house on Ramsey which is on City property be removed at the earliest possible date. - CITY COORDINATOR. S REPORT o 1. The matter of the sewer revenue charge for Hooley.s Wholesale Meats was discussed and Mr. Marshall was directed to contact Charles Hooley and ask him to have the water flow metered through September and then the Council make a decision regarding the charges for this building. 2. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Lammers a letter from Otto G. Bonestroo, Consulting Engineer for Oak Park Heights, regarding drainage benefits for a storm sewer outfall pipe from T. H. 212. 3. Mr. Marshall announced that Mr. O'Brien, representative for Local #49 will be in Stillwater wednesday or Thursday of this week. 4. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Wohlers a resolution was introduced setting up the Lily Lake Revenue Fund. (see resolutions). ... u . 85 . . . 86 . (May 25. 1971 - continued) 5. Discussion was held regarding the Valley Transit and the posqibility of the Metro Transit commission coming in to keep the bus lines running. It was suggested that this information be conveyed to the St. Croix Valley Area Chamber of Commerce and the Metro Transit commission that the City cannot legally finance this operation and that we will continue to work with these people. 6. Mr. Marshall informed the council that several letters had been received favoring the preservation of the Chestnut Stree . Stairs. Jack Shelton informed the council of the quotations for the removal of these stairs Moelter construction $2.000.00 (included the sodding after removal) Lawrence LeTourneau $1.500.00 (removal only) Peter Miller $1,050.00 (remo"al only). Mr. Delmar pauley stated that he would like to make a proposal quotation that in exchange for the removal of the stairs he would like to negotiate a piece of property 50 x 150 feet. but there is a 60 foot street in there and the storm sewer drainage from above the stairs. councilman Lammers asked if the City considered selling this 50 x 150 lot what procedure would we have to follow and Mr. Kimmel stated we would have to have appraisals on it and let it be known that it was available and get proposals from the people who are interested. On motion of councilman Pete:t'son, seconded by councilman Lammers, that Mr. Delmar pauley, and Mr. Kimmel work out a fair proposal and the city Attorney make a recommendation as to whether or not quotations would have to be received and report back at the next meeting. (all in favor). Mr. Dick Jeans 0_ the Chamber of commerce reported that they might be able to subsidize the cost of these stairs and have $200.00 pledged, but would hope to get $500 to $1,000 to leave the stairs in by a drive from the merchants. Mr. Jeans also felt the City's Transit problem is a city problem and that they would be happy to work with the city on this problem. Mayor powell stated that it would be the Council's recommendation to the chamber of COnlll8rce that they come up with the money. (Mr. Marshall was directed to contact Warren Bowe on the bus loan). CONSUL'l'ING ENGINEER'S REPORT (Duane Elliott) 1. The matter of sodding the Lily Lake Park Improvement was discussed. MOelter Construction will put in approximately 10,247 square yards at 50~ per square yard which includes the grading. David Junker of Junker Landscaping has quoted a price of 31~ per square yard but would expect Moelter to have it graded. Discussion followed regarding the amount left in this bond issue and Mr. Blekum reported that there is about $20,000 left. Mr. Blekum further stated that as far as the various contractors that have been working on this project Moelters and the mechanical contractors have been most cooperative. and if we can show them any consideration, we should do it _ they have been constantly held up by the other contractors. On motion of Councilman Wohlers, seconded by Councilman Balfanz the city Engineer and the City Attorney and city Coordinator work out this matter with Mr. Moelter with the intent that we want the sod rather than seeding. r c I"~ \.- '-' . . . . . . ('" ~ I i r I i ,- v ~ v (May 25, 1971 - continued) COMMITTEE REPORTS PUBLIC SAFETY No report PUBLIC WORKS JacK shelton 1. City Cleanup is finished - Total Cost $5,582.90. ADMINISTRATIVE Councilman Lammers All matters discussed have been turned over to Mr. Marshall to be checked out. PARKS AND RECREATION Councilman Balfanz 1. On motion of Councilman Lammers, seconded by councilman Peterson the purchase of the following items were authorized for the Lily Lake Park Development: Bleachers Approximately $5,000.00 8 Benches for the Locker Rooms 2 Steel Counter Cabinets at $36.50 each 1 Magna Chart $ 440.00 $ 73.00 $ 179.00 2. They will be making ice within the next two weeks. 3. Duane Nelson will have a skating instructor out there shortly. 4. Softball field to be sodded. 5. Checking out the prices on the Infra Red Heaters for the bleacher sections. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 1. The land condemnations out on Pine Tree Trail will be heard within the next month. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Wohlers the City Attorney was instructed to accept the proposal of Marcella Thorene for $100.00 and proceed with the necessary vacation procedures for the 66 foot roadway. 2. The matter of the Oscar Benson property was discussed and the matter of hookups for sewer and water was considered and whether or not these were put in - to be checked out. On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Wohlers the consulting Engineer be instructed to investigate the possibility of sewer hookups to the Oscar Benson property and make this report to the City Attorney. 3. Mr. Kimmel distributed to the City Council a copy of a letter that he had sent to A. B. Jackson as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 87. . . . 88 . (May 25, 1971 - continued) APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Lammers the following minutes were approved: April 20, 1971 May 3, 1971 May 4, 1971 May 11. L971 May 20. 1971 Regular Meeting 7,30 P. M. Special Meeting 9,00 A. M. Special Meeting 4,00 P. M. Regular Meeting 7.30 P. M. Special Meeting- Bid Opening 4,30 P. M. ORDINANCES On motion of councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Wohlers the clerk made the second reading of an ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE USE OF LILY LAKE AND LILY LAKE PARK". (':lrdinance No. 470) 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. RESOLtn'IONS The following resolutions were read and on roll call were unanimously adopted: 1. Adoption of Assessment Rolls - Local Improvements Nos. 78-79-80-84-85-86- 87--1969. 2. providing for Issuance and Public Sale of $225.000 State-Aid Street Bonds of 1971 and $690.000 Improvement Bonds of 1971. 3. Order Improvement of Riverview Drive. 4. Create the Lily Lake Park Revenue Fund. 5. Awarding the Contract for L. I. Nos. 98 and 99, project No.1. 6. Awarding the Contract for Local Improvement Nos. 98 and 99. project No.2 AroOIlRNMENT On motion of Councilman Peterson, seconded by councilman Balfanz, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 P. M. el/j1"AA"/~ Mayor ^".~~ U/ city Clerk . r !,""" \.....", r ! .... - ! , - c'