Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-09-19 CC MIN 346 . COUNCIL CHAMBER stillwater. Minnesota Septembar 19. 1972 7.30 P. M. SPECIAL MEE'l'ING The meeting was called to order by President Powell The Invocation was given by Mr. Marshall. pre..ntl Councilmen Balfanz, Lamtera, Pet.rBon, Wohlers and President powell Absent: None Also pre..nt: City Coordinator, Marshall: City Attorney, Xi__l: super- inten4ent of Public worles, Shelton: Public Safety Director, Abrahamson: Director of Parks and Recreation, alekum: Consulting Engineer, Elliott: Press: Stillwater Evening Gazette-- Roger Gratiot citizens: About 150 per~n8 - William Mack, Mrs. William Schmidt, Kenneth Andrews, Jack Dielentheis, Lil Dielentheis, Charles Berg, John Stouteft, David Linner, Richard Ulrich, Ted Gillen, Jerry Mahoney, John DeCurtins, Jr.. Michael Gearhart, Delmar pauley, Patrick White. Julie Bhlinger. CecilAlllDerman. Mr. McCarty. Earl Peterson. Mrs. Ernest Brisset.te. Peter Dielentheis. Richard Mundinger. Lyle Gull<i.ckson. Dan Ritz. Mrs. Sandra Cole. Dan Kroening. Charlo~e welshons. Christine Schell. Mrs. William ZOller. Mr. & Mrs. Tom Gerson. Irene Plandrick. Mrs. Fred Thompson. Mrs. Anna D81on. John Kiernan. Mr. & Mrs. Ed Larson. Mr. & Mrs. Victor Garey This was the day and time set for a public b6arinq on pr".:)pD8fld assessments for Local Improvement No. 98. project No. 2 (Reconstruction of Residential Streets). The notice of the hearing was published in the stillwater Evening Gazette. the official newspaper of the city on September 1. 1972 and a copy was mailed to all known property owners affected. The Mayor then opened the hear ing. MR. DUANE ELLIOTT stated that the hearing for this improvement was held on December 7. 1970 and construction began the spring of 1971 and was completed in 1972, which included five milis of residential streets. The initial estimate was $11.80 per foot and the final figure is $12.10 per asseBsible footage. The city's policy with corner lots is that the short side of the lot iA assessed at 10~ and the long side is asseosed at 35% of that footage by the $12.10 unit cost. He also mentioned that in some areas there were interior lots that were benefited and they are assessed on a unit basis based on the benefit. WILLLNM MACK, 502 West Elm stated he is protesting the charge for curb on his side of the street as he already had sidewalk and curbing. MR. ELLIOTT said the project which was heafd on December 7. 1970 was a city wide project and it was stated at that time that where there was existing curbing of stone or cement they would be left as it would be cheaper to do it this way. Then in other areas extra work had to be done to prevent erosion and this all became a part of the entire project. Also the width of some streets was greater than others. MR. MACK asked about the sidewalks and curbing costs and Mr. Elliott stated that there were no sidewalks in this project and the cost of the curbing was . . . . . (September 19, 1872 - continued) 347 about 50~ per foot. MR. MACK continued questioning the c:oet of sod and otte r items of the improve- ment and Mr. Blliott replied that this was also a part of the total improvement cost as was the variation in street widths and that it would have been more t~n 500 per foot to remove the existing curb in certain areas and then replace with the bituminous. AU of these variations are included in the total cost of the project.. and spread over all 'abutting property owners. MAYOR POWELL stated the total job is figured and the assessments are on the running feet abutting the project. If they would have torn out the old curb and put the sa_ on the other side, it would increase the total cost of the project. It is hard fOr the City to say that this man gets a lesser assessment because 20 or 50 years ago there was a concrete or stone curb put in. Also it is unfortunate that somebody. s bank has to be cut and then sod has to be added. ~. MR. MACK said that he has sidewalks on both side. of his property and it is costly to keep them . ~sh01eled - and if he would have to pay if they would have to be replaced and MAYOR pOWELL stated that if a sidewalk goes bad and has to be replaced it will be assessed against the property owner. There were no sidewalks in this particular project and no policy was set-up for such assess_nts. MR. IIACK said he was trying to figure out the fairness of it - there are no sidewalk. across the street from him. .IIftYOR PCMBLL stated this situation is not unique - the city tries to equalize it and lUke it as fair as possible and when you look at the total picture. the City is trying to be fair about it and the cost is reduced somewhat when it is part of a 'large project. MR. MACK asked why he and others Iwve to pay assessments on this when the people on county Aid Roads do not - this is not fair in his opinion. MAYOR POWELL said the City can and does assess the people on the State-Aid streets and they would lilce to assess the people on the County Aid Roads, but the County will not agree on this. MRS. WILLIAX SCHMIDT, 411 West Stillwater Avenue stated that they had a nice cement driveway which VAS replaced with bitWllinous and the sod has been put in 80 that they cannot cut it. MAYOR POWELL asked Mr. Elliott and Mr. Shelton to check this complaint out and take care of same. JCBNRBTH ANDREWS, 1422 North william Street stated that he was asseBsed for 95 feet frontage whereas they blacktopped only a little over sixty feet as approxi- _tely 35 feet was already done about five years ago and the City absorbed this cost at the time, and the people across the street are being assessed less than be is being aBSGESec. MAYOR POWBLL stat4d that the people across the Mr. Andrews it is hiB frontage or short side. Elliott and Mr. Shelton on this matter. .treet it is their side yard anC! He suqgeated that he talk to Mr. MR. ELLIOTT explaineC! that there were at le2lllt two or three dead-enC! streets - that is .treets that will never go tlU'ough and that such streets terminated about 10 feee short of the property owners lots and they were assessed as being a benefit to that property. The question was raised why Mr. Andrews was not a.sessed for this 35 feet and MAYOR POH'BLL stated that the Golf CourSti had paid for the full amount of this assessment on Moore Street in this area. MR. ANDREWS felt he was being penalized for something that was already paid for and Y...1\YOR POWELL asked that he talk to Mr. Shelton and Mr. Elliott about this assessment. (See Council action on this matter -page 353 ) . . . . r , . 34R . . (September 19. 1972 - continued) JACK DIELENTHEIS. 1505 North First Street stated he had no frontage on North First Street, and the drive put in by Dr. Kalinoff stops very short of his property even though there are 200 feet of dedicated street that has not been improved and questioned what benefit he was being assessed for. MAYOR POWELL said Mr. Beardsley, Mr. Berg: & Mr. Kraemer were here at a meeting and they felt as you do that they shouldn't be assessed for Riverview Drive and the people that want it that they should pay the assessment for it. The other people agreed that they would pay a unit amount even though they had no abutting property but they were going to use the street. J4!l. DIBLBNTHEIS stated that he did attend the first meeting but was not notifed of the subsequent meetings and MR. ELLIOTT stated there was a meeting on May 11, 1971 on the construction of Riverview Drive and it was felt it should be put in as a need for erosion and that there would be a unit assessment of $900.00 per lot computed to cover the cost of Riverview Drive. CHARLES BERG, 1408 Riverview Drive stated when they were involved in this at the time of the hearing the Council did indicate to Mr. Mead, Mr. Beardsley, and Mr. KraeIDBr that the interior lots would receive an assessment for the improvement on North First Street. Subsequently the Council agreed to go on a per unit basis. Mr. Dielentheis' property was not mentioned. He was going to be a88e8sed as an internal lot on North First Street. The other gentlemen agreed to a unit assess- ment for Riverview Drive and a180 Mr. Thornton Simpson was to be on this assessment. Mr. Pranklin Peterson was not to be assessed on this assessment. The other\'lots were also on the same baaia. MR. DIELBN'l'HBIS, stated the improvement of JIorth First Street would not benefit his property and he felt the City did more for him when they improved North Second Street as that is the street that he used to get to and from his home. MR. KXMMBL said the council felt that this was a situati~n similar to cul-de-sacs in that they were dealing with irregular lots and very frdnkly to deal with those lots it would have to be on a unit basis. By improving that street we are benefit- ing your property. This was the way it was discussed with the rest of the people, and that is the theory of it. MR. ELLIOTT stated that at the hearing the figure of $900.00 was arrived at for the nine lots or a total of $8,100.00. COUNCILMAN BALFANZ asked about the lots im'olved and MR. ELLIOTT responded that it was to include three lots of Dr. Kalinoff's, 4 lots on the West side of the street and Charles Berg. MAYOR POWELL asked Mr. Dielentheis to contact Mr. Shelton and the City Attorney on this assessment. (See page 352 for Council action on this item). JOHN STOUTER, 1513 Meadowlark Drive who owns p~operty at 1007 North Fourth Street stated that all he got was a tar road with no gutters or curbing dnd he is beinq assessed $12.10 wherea8 the esimate was $11.50 per foot. MAYOR POWELL stated that the City has gone to the bituminous curbing to reduce the cost of the streets. Back aeveral years ago there was a project where one street was done with the trial bitumino~s curbing and the rest of the project was .con- crete but that particular street was assessed separately from the balance of the project. MR. ELLIOTT added that last year the City assessed two State-Aid streets at $12.50 per foot for reconstrution and there was a matting project which was assessed at something less than four dollars per foot. About half way through this ~econstruction project there was an estimated cost figure of $11.80 per foot and with inflation and other added costs the final cost came out to $12.10 per foot. He said the reason for the interim estimate for this project was to set up escrow funds for the sale or exchange of property abutting on the project. . . " . . . . (September 19. 1972 - continued) 349 DAVID LINNER, 1503 North First Street questioned how often he would have to pay to have his street done as approximately 12 years ago the City put in a brand new street for which he was assessed $1.200.00. This year they came in and dug it up and did it allover again. Is this due to an incompetent engineer on the first construction or what? Why.wasn't this street fixed properly the first time? Are they going to do this again in another 16 years or BO _ was the street that bad? Im'YDR POWELL stated he drove on the street along with the other melabezsof the Council and it was bad. MR. LINNER responded that the reason for that was the clay at the base. ~YOR POWELL stated that at that time none of the present Council were on the C'vuncil and that the Council now is attempting to fix all of the streets in the proper mnner and correct the mistakes that were created in the past. He assured Mr. Linner that the street would not have to be dug up in another 12 ytlars. The City noW' has a policy to stub-in all services to all lots so that the streets won't have to be dug up again. RICHARD ULRICH, 418 West St. Croix Avenue questioned why St. Croix Avenue between William and North Martha Street was done as it didn't appear to be that bad, but the portion between Martha and Fourth Street i8 just like a "cowpath-. Also Syc...,re is in the same condition and was not done and William Street between Wilkin and Blm has never been blacktopped. MAlOR POWELL stated that some of these were not done due to storm water separation which will have to be done and then the street will be improved, and MR. ELLIOft added that this was a matter of opinion on 1I0me of the streets - level of deter- ioration on a given street. MICBABL GEARHART, 1001 South HolCOmbe asked if and when the sewer separation does come in, if they will tear up Holcombe Street and MR. ELLIOTT stated that they do not plan to take up any of the new streets - that is why they were re- consaudlld as they are Mt a part of the storm water program. MR. ELLIO'l"1' said that there was one stree.t which was included in this iDllZ' oYment that was involved in this separation and the necessary pipes were laid before the street was put in. On Holcombe Street if it is necessary to lay any pipes they would be put into the boulevards if his memory was correct on this matter. (Re did not have the necessary maps with him to check this matter out). _ they would not touch the street to do this. -,". DELMAR PA~ stated that the biggest problem with the sewer separation would be Myrtle Street, and MAYOR POWELL added that a lot of the streets. were done before we knew we had to separate the sewers, but in some of the areas they were properly done and will not have to be disturbed. MR. PAULBr asked if we could build a bigger sewer _:lstem to take care of this or po8sibly need another plant and COUNCILMAN LAMMERS commented that questions were being asked that did not relate directly to this particular hearing and if the people have any question with regard to this hearing, the COuncil would listen to those at this time - this would avoid getting off on a tangent. ." ~LBS BERG asked what the proposed plan was for re-payment on this and whet interest rate would apply to the unpaid balance. MR. MARSHALL stated the recoIMI8nded rate set by the staff is 6.25% to be spread over ten years. (About 1% over the bond interest). MR. BERG felt that the 1% markup on this was too great and that thft City would be making nk)ney on this and he could not see where they could justify the 1%. MR. MARSHALL explained that we do not know how many will prepay and the City cannot pay the bonds faster than they come due and we are still paying interest on the loan - the contractor has been paid for the work. COUNCILMAN BALFANZ felt one-half of a percent would be nore realistic. He felt one-half percent was more than enough for the Council to operate on. . . . 350 J (September 19, 1972 - continued) MR. MARSHALL stated that it was the recommendation of the fiscal agent to go to ~ which the council has rejected. The projects that were assessed last were figured at the same rate of interest which also were a part of this same bond issue. CHARLES BERG continued that the council shouldn't be making a profit on this. We all pay a motor vehicle tax and other taxes which come back to the City. He thought the council should really give some serious thought to changing this policy as they shouldn't go over one or ll;a€.. He felt one-half percent was enough to operate on. Also since it is his understanding that BOon these 8s8essments will be put on the County Computer system and this would reduce the City'. costs. (Mr. Berg received an applause from the audience for his statements). MR. MARSHALL stated he has not calculated the interest on the bonds on which the interest rate is 5.15 but that the City needs some kind of cushion to avoid going on the General Tax Levy. If there is an overpayment at the end of the ten years r that may well go back into City construction Funds to build a,bridge or use it in the Park Fund. At the end of ten years that surplus maybe used in many ways and a difference of one-half percent wouldn't make that much difference. not PATRICK WRITE. 603 West Churchill Street asked Why this couldj'be taken out of the General Fund and the MA'YOR said somebody is going to pay - anyway you figure it. you are going to pay it either in a larger sum or a little bit at a t.ime. MR. WRITB - Holcombe Street has been torn up three times because of the school busses and the school board should pay for that street. MAmR POWELL - you had a good point there and we are aware of that. MR. PAULEY - IIoney is unstable - .ybe". you should wait awhile to make the improve-.. ment and he was informed that the work has been done and this is an assessment hearing . JUtS. auLIB EHLINGER. 1512 North First Street asked that they put the property back as it was and complained about the condition of the sod that they 'laid in front of her home. MWRPOWBLL said we are concerned about it and we are going to notify the con- tractor. and unless something is done, something will be done with hi. bond for the project. MR. BLLIOTT - The contractor has not received final payment - there are about 5,000 yards of sod that has not been approved and they are now replacing it and there i. a 10% retainer on the project which would more than cover this sodding. MRS. BIlLINGER - They did not fill in between the sod and the other grass and the sod is all weed infected and you can't cut it. MR. ELLIOT"!' - This has been the nDst unsatisfactory part of this job and he is attempting to have thIs matter corrected with the sUb-contractor. CBCIL AMMBRMAR, 1511 North pirst Street - The contractor told him to let the weeds grow and wondered What he is going to get paid for cutting or mowing the boulevard. He also stated that there is a big hole in the curb in his area and further that he i. being charged for 160 feet on this project. w RICHARD ULRICH -Complained about the drivsaYB on st. Croix Avenue between william and Martha Streets and he was a.sured that thi. would be taken care of. MR. JC CARTY OF ST. PAUL (representing Helen White, 1002 West Oak Street) - He stated that when Greeley Street was done she was a..e8sed 100% and now she is being assessed 10~ on Oak StreBt. Mayor POWBLL - Some years ago it. was the policy to charge 100% on both sides on corner lots. It is hard to justify that - the placement of the lot determines what is the front and the length and not necessarily what the address is. NoW the policy is that you pay the full on the narrow side and 35% of the long side. '- . . . . . (September 19, 1972 - continued) 351 ~ . - MR. Me CARTY questioned what would have happened if Oak Street would have been done first and he was told that at the time that Greeley street was done the City was picking up 25% of construction costs. EARL PETERSON" 823 North owens street complained about the fact tha t the curb is cracking on Elm Street and also that his driveway of crushed rock was not replaced. MRS. BRNBST BRISSE'l"l'E" 1308 North Martha Street stated that kids are breaking up the tar curbing and hauling it away and requested that a notice be placed in the paper to alert parents that they are responsible for this problem. She has three lots on St. Croix and Martha and with 135 feet on Martha ana questioned which WDuld be her long side and she was asked to check this out with Mr. Shelton. AT TIllS TIJIB MR. _HALL BXPLAINED TIlE IlB'rRlD OF PA_ lOR THIS PROPOSED ASSBSSMIlN'r WHICH TIIB STAFF HAS RIlCOMIlI!NDED BE SPRBAD OVER TEN YBARS AT A RATB OF IIlTIl1UIST OF ''e!. ~ PETER DIELBNTRBIS, who owns property on Elm Street, asked if water was put in on Blm as he has lots facill9 Martha and Elm, ana Mr.. Elliott stated that this portion of the project was as.essed last year and he did not have the necessary ups with him. He sUCJge.ted that Mr.. Dielentheis check this with him later.. ... '#f RICHARD MUNDINGER, 120 West Wilkin, is located on the corner of North Fourth and Wilkins and i. being :-.888.8.d the full aD)unt on Fourth whereas he paid full on liil1dna two years ago.. MR. ELLIOTT responded that l'.ilkin Street was only a matting and the cos t of sa.. would have been nominal. LYLE GULLICKSON" 206 South Pifth, asked if the City couldn't patch the holes on South Fifth in order.to getup to chestnut street which is means of getting to hi8~1DB and MAYOR POWELL stated that because of the sewer separation which is so cl08e 'at hand they didn1t want to spend money and have to re-do it. DAN NITZ, 616 West olive Street asked who might be assessed for the sewer separation and MR. MARSHALL said this would be assessed on a unit basis and the streets would be repairecl. The cost would be approximately $200,00 with a grant and without a grant $400.00. MRS. SANDRA COLE,1219 Noeth William, asked what the life spand of the streets were - the quality of the curbing and now long it is suppose to last? MAWR PCMELL said that blacktop won I t last ae long as the concrete but it is considerably cbe.!lper:.6. MR. ELLIO'l"l" said that bituminous street section should last for 20 years without major maintenance - that is major relllitting and he would propose doing sealcoating on some other basis than assessing as the cost of preparing the assessment roll for this work is 80 costly. The cost of con- crete curbing would be $2.50 to $2.75 per foot and the bitWlinous curb is 60(:- per foot and won' t have the life as the concrete curb. For long life the concrete curbing is preferred. J MRS. COLE asked if the City plowing destroys the curb who is responsible and MR. ELLIOTT said at the time this was brought up it was discussed and found this was beet for the City of Stillwater. The majority of 'the Council looked at bituminous curbing which had been in for over 12 years in other coammities and were quite surprised as to the good condition of the curbing. MR. KIMMEL stated that the City will patch the curbing the same as they patch the streets. PAT WHITE stated that the plows do tear up the curbs in some areas due to the irregularities and jogs in the streets. TIlE MAYOR CLOSBD TIIB HBARING AT 9.00 g. M. THE MAYOR DECLARED A RECESS FROM 9:00 P. M. to 9:15 P. M. . . . . . 352 . (September 19, 1972-continued) written reports and letters of complaint or opposition to tha proposed assess- ment were received from the following persons involved in this impz:ovement which were turned o;r.r to Mr. Shelton: Arthur Swanson Margaret Burke Gary F. Sample Paul and Margaret Doerr Mr. & MrS. George Schmitt carl F. pretzel John c. F. Kaske 126 North Sherburne Street 718 west Hickory street 1015 West Olive Street 901 West Maple street 208 West Chestnut Street 809 West olive Street 620 West Oak Street sefore the assessment roll could be adopted there was the matter of the proposed assessment for K8nneth Andrews and Jack Dielenthsis for council action. MR. KIMMEL _ Basis of assessing Mr. pielentheis based on First Street and not on Riverview. Mr. Dielentheis has a forty foot ease..nt with Mr. Ammermann. MR. ELLIOTT _ The Council did meet on this and it is recorded in the minutes of MaY 25, 1971 and this was part of the agree..nt. MRS. DIBLBN'l'BEIS asked what the agree..nt was and they knew nothing about it and COURCILIIAN LNIIBRS saia that the result of the agreement on Riverview Drive ana that Mr. Dielentheis was not incluaed in that agreement. MR. ELLIOTT stateeS that this was based on an average lot in the area and came up with the $900.00 assessment and this would be an assessment on an eighty foot lot. MR. KIMMEL stated that if the cauraeil wants to levy. an assessment on Mr. Dielentheis' property he thought the basis of the calculation that was u.s.d on the lots on the Riverview Drive agreement. IIR. ELLIOTT aia not have a drawing of the map which was used at the time of the agreeMnt ana COUNCILMAN IAMMBRS ..-sked if the council had a legal right to assess Mr. Dielenthei.. MR. KIMMEL stated that he thought Mr. DielentheifJclid receive a benefit from the improvement of First street even though his property does not front on it. He felt the benefit should not be based on the calculation from Riverview but based on an average lot in the improvelll8nt. MR. BLLIOfT said on Febmary 6, 1971 Mr. Charles Berg, Dr. Fred Kalinaff, Mr. Reginald Mead, Mr. wendell Beardsley, Mr. & Mrs. Jack Dielentheis and Mr. Alex Krae_r were at the meeting held on February 7, 1971. JACK DIBLBlft'HBIS said they were never notified of the subsequent meetings a C01JRCILMAN BALFANZ felt although it was included on a separate basis on the nine lots that Mr. Dielentheis should pay his fair share of the assessment a He moved that we charge him the assessment of $900.00 on the First Street Improvementa COUNCILMAN PETERSON seconded the motion. (all in favor). MRS. DIBLBlft'BEIS said that the City is making a profit on this as all the property owners were paying the full assessment which were included in the nine lots. MAyOR POWELL said: there were so many feet and this was divided into the total cost of the project and that the Dielentheis property has no front footage to reduce the cost of the whole project. JACK DIELENTHEIS - you are assessing us for North because of this access on North First Street a First on benefits received . . f""" - " '-- . . . ,~ ,..... t':) .. I~ ~ '><"\ -..I ~, (September 19. 1972 - continued) llRNIIR'I'A' ANDREWS ASSESSMENT MR. MARSHALL stated that Mr. Andrews has 95 feet on William Street and 30 feet of this was done when Moore Street was improved and it dead-ended at his property but he was never assessed - he has approximately 63 feet of asphalt laid in front of his house - the proposed assessment is for the full 9S feet and he is requesting an assesslI8nt of only approximately 63 feet as the golf: course paid for the others. MR. ELLIOTT stated that on Rice Street all property owners were assessed the filii amount even though the blacktopping cUd not go the full length of their lots. MR. KUIMB1. - In discus.lng aBseSsMnts on streets not extended the full length" the COuncil determined an assessment based on benefit. Kenneth Andrews' property and the property on Rice Street are two different things in the Mayor' s opinion. COUHCIUWI PBTBRSON - Moved that the a8se8s..nt for Kenneth Andrews be reduced from 95 feet to the allDunt that was improved or reconstructed at thio t:iaoo. C01JlI:llMH WORLBRS seconded the motion. (Councilman Lanlaers opposed). BLVIRA mJILBY1s ASSES~1IR1I1'I' MR. MURALL also asked about the assessment for Blvira Conly on Blm and Bverett where she has a lIIUU'e lot and the front lot could be broken into two - 75 foot lots and that the assessment for this property should be changed from the full 150 feet to 35% or 52.5 feet. On IIIDtion of CouncilJaan LumBrs, seconded by Counci~n Peterson that the assessment for Elvira Conley be reduced from 150 feet t:o 52.5 feet:. On mtion of COWlcilman Laamers, seconded by Councilman ~alfanz a Resolution was introduced "ADOPTING TIIB ASSBSSMBI1'J' ROLL FOR LOCAL IMPROVBMBN'l' NO. 98, PROJECT RJ. 2- with the changes acted upon (Andrews and conley) with interest at 6.25% and said assessMnts to be spread over a ten year period. (all in favor). (see resolutions). 2. This was the day and ti_ set for a public hearing on the proposed construction of sidewalks on oak Street between ~lcombe and William Streets. The notice of hearing was published on September 8 and 15, 1972 and copies were mailed to all property owners liable to be benefited. The Mayor opened the hearing. DUAHE BLLIO'l'T explained that there are 333 feet of six foot sidewalk in good shape which could be tapered rather than taken out and the cost of sawing it down would be about 500 per foot. The proposed estimated cost of construction would be $11,500.00 and the cost of the sidewalks would be $4.50 per foot and the COst of t:he dri_ys ,,",uld be $75.00 each. DAN KROENING, 616 West Oak Street, stated he has 120 plus feet on this street and his sidewalk is cracked but is basically intact and walkable. At this time he did not think or feel that it has to be replaced. He questioned the assessmenT: policy for sidewalks. MR. ELLIOTT stated that the Council has not had a chance to deliberate on an assessment policy for sidewalks. 353 . . . . 354 . << (September 19, 1972 - continued) MR. KtOBNING asked if a his own sidewalks if he responsoea .certain+y". person is able to. if he would be allowed to put in met the city requirements and COUNCILMAN PETERSON MR. KROENING said he would do the job for himself and do it cheaper. but he does have some trees which might uproot the sidewalk. MmR POWELL asked MR. ELLIOTT what the plan was for trees abutting the side- walks and he said they could bend the sidewalk around the trees or they cut into the roots with a special saw. MR. KROENING stated that some areas on oak Street definitely need the sidewalks replaced but in other areas they are not needed at this time. MRS. CHARLOTTE WBLSIIJRS, 514 West Oak Street, said her sidewalk was in good condition until they drove the .cat. over it and broke it - she had it repaired four years ago. They left a big piece of cement which stuck up. She could not .ee why they would have to have their walk repaired or replaced when the people in the next block need them and also that SOmB of the sidewalks on olive Street are in much worse condition than hers and her immediate neighbors. MAYOR POWELL stated that the Council is considering an overall project to repair the bad sidewalks in the city and the reason for this is that the City has a directive from the insurance company. MRS. WELSII>NS could not see why she should be penalized for this - - - OOUHCILMAN IAMMBRS asked Jack Shelton if we were aware of this and Jack stated that the sidewalks are not right up to the street and some of it vas careless- ness on the part of the contractor. MRS. WILLIAM ZOLLER.. 703 West Oak street.. said when they took out her tree they took out some blocks which were repaired with tar and they also put holes in the yard and cracked the sidewalk and she would like to have the tar taken out and replaced with cement. TOM GERSOH.. 712 West oak Street - they are proponets of the sidewalks on Oak Street and they have the worst sidewalk - it was removed when the tr_swere taken out and Bomething has got to be done. They have been waiting and he did not feel that they can wait two or three years for the sidewalk project to come along. Most of the people on his side of the street on oak Between Martha and William on the North side want this sidewalk. He felt they had three alternatives (1) the City put in the side-walk--(2)-make it hiJD8elf on a four foot basis, or -- (3) _ take out the old and put in grass to the street. IRBIm FLA1lIDRICK.. 623 West oak Str.eet.. stated that HOrman Anderson.. who had signed the petition.. has changed his mind and does not want it at this time. -- MRS. I'RBD THOMPSON, 824 West 011..: Street, stnted that they do need the sidewalk and are willing to have theirs put in but does not feel that the people who have goOd sidewalks should be penalized. They have had the sidewalk from their home to the public sidewalk repaired or replaced by a private contractor. MAmR POWBLL asked if the people put in their own sidewalks what kind of restric- t ions could be put on it and MR. BLLIOTT said we could notify the people and gift them the option of baving it done by a private contractor and after a length of time, the City can go in and do it. There would have to be servilance by the City as the gJtades would have to be considered - he didn't feel that having it done by a contractor would work out. MRS. THOMPSON stated they have had several estimates and they could have it done as cheap as the price quoted by Mr. Elliott. (Tl\is was for their property and the neighbors and the price was $200.00 for the 52 feet.) MR. KROENING felt eVAntually those sidewalks will have to be replaced and they ~tld go on a city wide project and the price should be somewhat less. r \-. 1\0; . . \ ' . . . .'"""' ~ i (..;""'\ '-' (september 19, 1972 - continued) MR. PLAHDRICk aSKed who i8 responsible for State Aid assistance property and MR. K1..1OIBL stated it would be levied against the property and the taxes will become delinquent, but it will not he assessed to the other property owners on this street. MR. ARHA DULON" 623 West Oak Street thought her sidewalks were in gOOd condition and would he for a few years to COmB. When NSP puts in a pole they put in blacktop in lieu of a celDBnt block. CITIZEN ON OAK STREET stated that he and others have six foot Bidewalks on the South side of Oak Street and could not see how they could red'lCe this sidewalk to four foot - the appearance of the property would not red'lC'e the valuation of the property. Prom the economical standpoint that would be the ssnsible thing to do and it would be best to have it tapered. He then asked if any improvements are made to any sidewalka on this street, will those whose sidewalks are not disturbed be asse.sed for any part of the sidewalks that ar.e replaced. MAYOR PONBLL said it is the feeling of the Council if you repai.r your eidewalk previous to this, there would be no charge. MR. BLLIorr stated that not all sidewalk abuts property - there are the inter- sections and this would be of general benefit to the area. MR. BLBXDM atated that on his street some of the sidewalks on his side of the street are built up to the curb and others in the same block are put in with a boulevard. COUIfCIUIAN WOHLERS asked if the City is goil~g to tear up sidewalks that eculd be repaired at a very nolllinal cost and MR. BLLIO'l"l' responded that some are qood and others are substantially good - the City will have to establish a policy of uniformity as to the strength, etc. MRS. ZOLLER asked when they are going to finish her job and Mr. S~lton was directed to check her sidewalk out. ED LARSON, 807 West Oak Street asked if the tapering would_ be done on his or just the new construction and MAYOR POWELL said it would be done only on the new work and the others would be four foot width. MR. GBRSON asked if the work could be done in thirty days and MAYOR POWELL stated that the project requires, if it is done, it be done in a reasonable tilDe. MR. MARSHALL stated that they were told that there were people who needed side- walks and we called all of the people in for this hearing. COUHCILMAR INOIBRS said we should know which sidewalks need to be replaced and MR. ~LLIOTT said there are four property ownere with sidewalks in good condition which will not have to be replaced - (Bliss, Larson, Kaske, and LandlllBrk) and he felt the rest should be replaced. MR. JOIDf KIBRRAR, 717 West Oak Street felt the only reason his was bad wae because the City or the contractor had run into it with a loader and he did not feel that it should be replaced. MR. KRODIHG said there are cracks in his and was wondering where they would stop with this and they could go around the corner and they are really bad. MR. VICTOR GAREY, who owns property at 517 West Oak Street, questioned What con- d ition the sidewalks were in on some of the other streets. He felt there should be guidance as to what the condition should be in comparison to Oak Street. JACK SHELTON said that Oak Street is probably one of the wor'lt. We have some streets that are much worse. He felt they needed a sidewalk project for Oak Street, and he :<new it would be sometime before they could get a city-wide project going. He said there were five or six who asked for the sidewalks and he understood that they had a street assessment to pay and that some of this sidewalk was broken up in construction. . 355 . . . 356 (September 19. 1972 - continued) MR. GAREY felt there should be a code or ruling pertaining to sidewalks that they had to be in certain condition. WhO decides when it should be replaced. MR. KIMMEL stated when the Bngine~r deems it to be dangerous. MR. GAREY Baid there are only four that needed replacement and about 19 others that need repair. and questioned the insurance company's decision. MAYOR POWELL said the insurance company is doing it for what they feel is the best for them and we can't be without insurance. w. will have to have a Ciky- wide sidewalk program and when we dt) it will have to be up to our engineering staff .s to what will have tc.. be conE: and what does not have to be done. MRS. DULON stated that a8 far as children getting hurt, there haven't been any accidents on her sidewalks. IIR. GERSON' asked if it WilS feasible if the Engineering Department charge the benefited peop1.e and not charge anybody else anything - find a man or a crew that could do the job this fall. COU1!1CIUIIUI IAlMBRS felt a survey be made for the whole city and it should be done in accordance with the city charter. We should give th_ the opportunity to contract f~r it if it can be done at a lower rate and give them an opportunity to have it done within thirty days. On motion of Councilman Lanmers, seconded by CouncilnuuI Peterson that the Council approve the project as proposed, advertiBefor bids and de that and a8sess that illlProvement against those involved in the project which is to be done this year. 3. This was the day and time set for a Public Rearing on proposed assessments for Local IlIIProvement No. 103 (Wildpines Water and sewer). The notice of hearing was published on September I, 1972 in the stillwater Bvening Gazette, the official newspaper of the City, and a copy was mailed to the benefiting ~perty owners. The Mayor then opened the hearing. MR. MARSHALL reported that the bonds for this project were sold last year at 3.3%. No one appeared to be heard on these proposed assessments. on IIOtion of Councilman peterson, seconded by councilman Balfanz a resolution was introduced adopting the asses..nt roll for Local Improvement Ro. 103 (Wildpines Water and sewer) with interest at 6'" and to be spread over a three year period. (Councilu.n Lammers opposed). (See resolutions). 4. This was the 4a1' and time to continue the hearing on the request of Robert steindorff for the vacation of . portion of Mary1c.noll Drive, 8ubject to a .ewer easement to be retained by the City. (The hearing was continued from the previous meeting because one of the Council members was absent and it takes a full vote of the Council for a street vacation). On motion of Councilman Balfanz. seconded by Councilman wohlers a resolution was introduced "Vacating a Portion of Maryknoll Drive subject to a sewer easement to be retained by the City~" (see resolutions). . "1 . ~ . ~ ~ , - '--" (September 19. 1972 - continued) 357 OLD BUSINESS 1. On notion of CouncilaaD Balfanz, seconded by councilman PAterson the Mayor and city coordinator were authorized to sign an agreement with the Depart- ..nt of Natural Resources for the Maintenance of the countryview Bicycle Trail. 2. The city coordinator reported that notice of sale of $140.000 Temporary ImProvement Bonds of 1972, Series B had been duly published and that he had _t with the Mayor in the coordinator's office on September 19. 1972. at 12:00 noon.. He further stated that the bids received had then been opened and found to be as described in the tabulation of bids. copies of which were distributed to the _Rlber. pre.ent. He stated that he and the ..yor had then awarded 8ale of bonds to the AMrican National Bank & Trust 00.. of St. paul, Minnesota, at a price of $138,919.00 plus accrued interest on the bonds to the date of delivery, at the interest rates stated in the bid of said bidder. Tbe COOrdinator's report was approved and the tabulation of bids received wae ordered to be lllade a part of the minutes of this meeting. The coordinator presented proposed forms of bond and coupon for said bond i.sue, which were examined, approved and ordered placed on file in the office of tluo City Clerk-COOrdinator. Councilman LalllD8rs, then introduced Resolution No. 4769, entitled -Resolution Authorizing Xssurance of $140,000 Temporary XmproveMnt Bonds of 1972, Series B, Fixing Their Form and Details, Directing Their becat16n and Derlivery, and Providing for Their payment,. and moved its adoption. Councilman Wohlers seconded the JllDtion and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted - AYE: Councilmen Balfanz, LaIlaers, Peterson, Wohlers and President Powell and the following votod NAY, Hone whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopt.ed and was signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the Clerk. (see resolutions) TAIlUIATIOIlS OP BIDS Het Interest COst & Rate BicJdar The First National Bank of St. paul St. paul, Minnesota CouDOn Price 3.20% 1975 $139,468.00 $13,972.00 (3.3266%1 First Niltionil1 Bank of Minneapolis Minneapolis, Minnesota 3.25% 1975 $139,510.00 $14,140.00 (3.3666%1 continental Xllj,nois Hational Bank " Trust Co. Chicago, Xllinois 3.25% 1975 $139,440.00 $14,210.00 (3.38333%1 Bane Northweet of Minneapolis Minneapolis, Minnesota 3.25% 1975 $139,020.00 $14,630.00 (3.4833%1 National City Bank of Minneapolis Minneapolis, Minnesota 3.50% 1975 $140,02B.00 $14,672.00 (3.4933%1 AmBrican National Bank" Trust Co. St. paul, Minnesota Farmers " Merchants State Bank Stillwater, Minnesota 3.25% 1975 $138,964.00 $14,6B6.00 (3.4966%) La salle National Bank Chicago, Illinois 3.25% 1975 $138,796.00 $14,854.00 (3.53666%) Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood Minneapolis, Minnesota 3.30% 1975 $138,628.00 $15,232.00 (3.62666%1 . . . . 358 (September 19. 1972 - continued) IIEW BUSIIIBSS 1. On motion of Councilman Balfanz, seconded by councilman Peterson Change order No. 1 for LOcal Improvement No. 102 (Bjugan sewer) was approved and a180 a resolution was introduced -Accepting the project and Making Final payaBftt to Maplewood Plumbing for project No. 102. (see resolutions). 2. On JlW)tion of Councilman Balfanz, seconded by councilman wohlers a resolution was intro4uced awarding the Add-Alternate Bid of $13.638.00 to KamU'. Inc. for Local Improve_nt No. 106 - croixwood, First Addition~.. Water and and sewer. (see resolutions). (councilman peterson opposed). 3. on IIOtion of councilman Peterson, seconded by councilman Wohlers the Council approved the location of three street. lights on pine Tree Trail and Lake Drive and the Director of Public Works is to determine the exact location of said lights. 4. on motion of councilman Wohlers. seconded by Councilman Balfanz the council approved the 'tIX8cution of a mutual aid agreelDBnt witt~' the city of Hudson Fire Department. 5. The .econd reading of an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDlttANCE AMENDING ORDINANCB Jl1O. 383. THE ZONING ORDINANCB. RELATING TO ACCESSORY BU...,uUINGS YARD SBTBACKS- will be held at a future meeting after the Planning and zoning commission has had a chance to review same. 6. The city Attorney requested that the possible Ordinance relating to the unreasonable acceleration of automobiles as requestE1d by Mr. Abrahamson be delayed until he had had a chance tc make a further check on suchan ordinance. 7. On motion of councill'liln Wohlers. seconded by Councilman Balfanz a resolution was introduced -AU'J'IIDRIZING THE INSTALLATION OF NO PARlCIRG SIGNS-on theSast side of North pifth Street from West Myrtle to Rice Street extended. (eee reaolutions). 8. The utter of the vacancy in the Fire Department and the discussion of reorganization of the Public safety Department will be taken care of at a special meeting on Friday. September 22. 1912 at 3:30 P. M. in the pire Department. 9. on IDOtion of Councilman Peterson. seconded by councilman Balfanz purchase of the following s.cI1rities from the city of Stillwater as principal was approved by the pirst National Bank of Minneapolis. B.crow Account: $1,000.00 USA Treaeury~i11e Due 9/30/72 Yie1d--4.30 ...n.....IHICATIONS None ,r~ . . r-. C) . ~ ,- , , ~ .:) , (September 19, 197~ - continued) APPLICATIONS On motion of Councilman Wohlers, seconded by Councilman Balfanz the fOllowing Contractor's Licenses were granted: A. M. Philipson & Stucco, Inc.. 2289 N. 1st St. North St. paul, MD. 55109 Lathing & Plastering - Stucco (new) R. & M. Construction Co. Box 821 Lakeland. Minnesota General (new) CZTY moRDY_TOR' S RBPORT Discus.ion was held regarding the CitY""Wide :l"all Pickup and it was decided that there would he curb pickup for leaveti only and then the rest is to be hauled down to the dump box and the dat:. of the pickup is to be determined by the Director of Public Work. - ME'.. Shelton. On IIOtion of Councilman Wohlers, seconded by Councilman Lalllll8rs a resolution was introduced -DIRBOTIHG TIlE PAYMBRT OF THE BILIS".. (.e. re801utiolUl). DBTlPI:!lIurIOllS AND INDIVIDUALS (out of ord'Jr) Mr.. . RichardUlrieh que.tioned the Council regarding the proposed ehange for the reorganization of the Public Safety DepartMnt and. also the vacancy.. in the Fir~ Department. He wan~,~ to know how this would benefit the City of Stillwater _ What will be the 4iapo.i~,...Rf th3 man who has been heading up the Fire Depart_nt _ the 8Jlpower change in the Police Department - recent changes or replacements have bien filled by examination and why not these positions _ these are all people in Public Safety positions. The responses were that the man who is being replaced will become a fire- fighter and there would be no manpower change in the Police Department and this would not take a policeman off the street. Further discussion followed and it was felt that the Council should meet with the Fire DepartlDBnt personnel on this matt.er on Friday. September 22. 1972 at 3:00 P. M. PUBLIC SAPm'Y t"nIlllITTEB REPnRTS 1. On motion ot Councilman Wohlers, seconded by COuncil....n Peterson a resolution was introduced "AtJTHORZZING THB INSTALLATION OF RlSIDBHT'IAL PARKIHG SIONS ON BAST PINE STRBBT". (aee resolutions). PARKS AND RECREATION 1. On motion of Councilman Lamers. seconded by Councilman Wohlers Mr. Blekum was directed to accept the low bid for the plexi-OlasB for the Ice Arena at a price of $2,400.75. ORDINANCES None 359 . . 3GO . . (September 19, 1972 - continued) RESOLUTIONS The following resolutions were read and on roll call were unanirrously adopted: 1. Directing the payment of the Bills 2. Authorizing Issurance of $140,000 Temporary Improvement Bonds of 1972, Series B, Fixing Their Form and Details, Directing Their Exectuion and Delivery, and providing for Their payment. 3. vacating a Part of Maryknoll Drive. 4. Adopting Assessment Local Improvement No. 98 - project No.2 - lq71. 5. Adopting Assessment Local Improvement No. 102-1971. 6. Adopting Asses unent Local Improvement No. 103-1971. 7. Authorizing the Installation of No parking Signs 8. Authorizing the Installation of Residential parking Signs 9. Accepting Work - Local Improvement No. 102-1971 (Maplewood plumbinq) 10. AmlInding Resolution No. 4756 - IDeal Improvement No. 106 - Croixwood, First Addition Sewer and Water. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Councilman Wohlers, seconded by councilman Peterson the meeting adjourned at 11:30 P'O M'O oJ~ Mayor - Attest. cS2 {]~_I /l.f city clerk r- - i-m>" 1-' ;.."" l....,i '- . . .