The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01 25 1977the improvement (portion„as shown on ma and as part of Road, County Road 83, and County Road c� 21, ih�thatl l mind entertain a motion'to that affect. Comments were made and questions were asked by the followi Mr, Walt` Shoemaker:, The comments V uest ens` and o£ this ng; tape and will be kePe On file in the City meeting are offices , on I I PROJECT 76 - 2 Motion was lade by Oakes that the portion of Project 76 ds on the map and'as described as Island.View Road, ) County Road °83, and County Road 21 tie deleted, seconded by Watkins and upon a vote taken i.t was ` duly' passed.- P a Mkyo, Stock released 'the chair to Councilman Hakes who chaired the Public Hearz -. s :. Mr= Earl] / ova #s asked for aclarification of the motion, Councilman Oakes I explainedlthe motion. `._.1 ,t. Mr- Wayne %,ong presented the portion of the, project to be left in Project 76 -2' �� Ilfayne Long presented a description and estimated cost of the sanitar sewer, watermain, and paving project area'involved for review and, discus- sion. The estimated cost of this. project-' The folio 1 I p p convents or asked questions that were answered by thew, EO staff: Mr. Jim W eninger, Butternut Beach; Mr, Bob Boeck,- Fairview, Beach, ,'. Ken Carlson 'Butternut ° Circle; Mr. Jim Space, Y, Buttern?�t Beach; Mrs: Irene Cawle . Butter'nut Beach; Mr..' �&5 ild Cooke, Lot Lois S Paul Norton, Northwood Road; Mr,, Barton; Lund," 20 and 2F, ButterAda, ircle; Mr '' .Joh wn Seeney, tat 87, Northwood; and y` W. ;Bill Be ster„ Lots 3 and' 4; Block 32 Spring Lake 'i'awnsite.' Wayne 'Long presented the proposed equivalent" method' of assessment, est ®ated assessment costs, and connection <charge$, this project for revlew,� -" discussion. Further comments were made _and questions were asked by the following: : Mr. Jim Weninger, Mr. Bob Boeck, -Mr. Evans, Mr. Doug Hafermann, Lots 3, 4, 9, lo, 11, 12, BU U, 31, Spring Lake`Townsite; Mr. Robert Olson' 3, 4 S Lots ,, , Sunset Shores; Mr. Jim Space; Mr, Ken' Carlson; Mrs. Irene Cawley; Mr. Jim Dunn,•. Rich Core, Spring Lake. `µ Mayor Stock asked the Council to respoiid to the equivalent method of _, assessment versus the fxbnt footage method of assessment. i3 P MINUTIS. of the hoeoodtws of tM VitlaWo teuneil of tbo "in" of Prior Lek* in t tho C January 2S, 1977 .,1 The Common Council of the City of Prior Lake met in special January 25 session on, , 1977 at 8:00 P.M, in t the City Council Chambers for the purpose of a Public Hearing on.the "Spring Cake" improvement p project for srnitary sewer, Waterman, and vin 1 Pa g• Mayor Stock called the meeting to / ,Srder. Present were Mayor- Stock, C Councilmen Bissonett, Busse, Oakes, and Watkins;•City Manager McGuire, Engineer Anderson, a and Attorney, Sullivan. SPRING LAKE Ma r Stock read the public- notice for the "Spring Lake" project, ' Mayor Stock introduced the City Council and City Staff. Mr, Wa yne Long of, Orr- Schelen -M apd AssocYates, Inc., Consulting r . the project. Mayor Stock stated.thit` the Council has done a study and has drawn` I I also kith the assistance of the staff, and the study was basically on growth,rate of undeveloped lots t that are within z z With this in m nd, alsoeSthelPlan in , , arrived at a conclusion that this area at this particular- _time,should not be � • • o� °c � C ' MINUTES of the Meeoodinss of the Village Council of the Vil kWh of Prior take in the County of Scott and State of Minnesota, inetutlina all accounh audit*# by said Council. PROD. 76 -2 Councilman'Bissonett stated he would like to see the Council stay with `the, ,_,` front footage rather than the equivalent way, Councilman Watkins stated that in this artiroect, to bring the bottom closer to the middle andcthe closer he middle and he would; like to see the equivalent assessment method. Councilman Busse stated he goes with the equivalent assessment method. Councilman Oakes stated there is a difference en g _ for everybody as described in the hearin last lnightntandohedoeslnotoknaw what it Ji for the hearing tonight,"but the one last night 'was, in order to.find out what going from equivalent 'footag You take e t�;front footage would do, front footage assessment for'a.50 foot lot, you add would d a t. fooi. to i the front footage everybody else with property on up beyond that f and that's what your assessment would be under the direct method: -Every front footage for every lot would be about $10.00 more per foot and that comes about through,.changing --from,,the Council's recommendation whichxis: a,. basic- benefit which really s Y Y you have -one each sewer and one each \ `.. y water .and then as the property gets bigger it addresses the question of \ I it-takes money to buy pipe in to longer get across that have bi er ,peoples `parcels gg parcels; He does think where there is multiple ownership 4 of smaller lots that this needs be dealt with on an individual case, not to provide preferential treatment, but more especially to do -what 'they have u always done, which he failed to mention in& he is sorry he omitted'.it, ' prior to the actu assessment hearing the Council designated by the Mayor and staff goes through every ry assessment and every assessment that is significantly out of an,average assessment is individually reviewed. This is an attempt to catch those instances in which they have not dealt equitably with a lot. Based on,his feeling of whist other other communites are doing and what they need td do here, must-say when'the City considered the,equivalent charge for a unit to be. served; they did consider ft as a basic unit, and they did set this atl:80 thought feel, and ;this was set on ;what they was a going rate for+one. each sewer and water.. It seems to him to be an accurate way to -tecognize'Lhe benefit. He supports the equivalent method as being * the great many cases the mo "st fairly equitable - assessment.. Mayor - Stock stated he also favored the equivalent method of assessment. Motiaw�waa " ma d e by Watkins that the-assessment for the "Spring Lake" improvement project area be calculated on the equivalent basis, seconded by'Busse and upon a vote taken it was dul passed'. Councilman Bissonett ,v oted. against the motion, � Mayor Stock asked the Council to respond Lo whist they have heard this, evening on whether or not the Council should order or deny this i' prove,- r� f ; v nest and the authorization to the consulting engineer for the preparation j of the final plans and specifications. a, Councilman Busse ° stated he knows the project costs are going up and going up higher and he would be in favor of this project. Councilman Oakes stated he is in favor of the project being approved this evening. Councilman Watkins stated he daes.not retract the � statements he made last_, night at the other public hearing,,.he feels that the group at -this public hearing understands the problem, understands the solution, and he would! ' be in favor of the project. Councilman Bissonett stated he is in favor of the project. Mayor Stock stated they have seen escalating costs,- the project is'not going to get any cheaper, secondly, he` thinks that the ruling of the PCA and the forcing of sealed septic .,tanks and their cost of $50.00 every 15 days. Ehe does not know if anyone experienced pumping their tanks,, he Y. was one of the unfortunate ones that it was every 22 'days and it is vary e ' Granted he a' o feel that these project costs are on the -significcant `side; they are a burden, and, he is sure' that each of the Council members appreciates and understands that, but at this time he would . have to favor the author- iza.tion of the improvement and preparation of the final plans. ,i _ � i I NMNUM Of th.;'hecwdis" of Mo V11 18 9t Council of thwVilleft of hior I "* In w the Covntp of Scot Oft Slob if t MiM� indwli" .li aceounb QwiiNd by :,iW Coiiintil 1 i PRO.I•:76 - 1 s'76 -2 Notion , was wade�by 8issonett orders `� ( 76-'1 I� Project ,. and that portion of Project 76 -2 not/deleted, randWauthor' . zing the Consultant Engineers to• prepare the',final 1 plans and__s seconded by Matkins and, upon a vote taken it was'dul pea ca tions, Y ,passed. n Notion was t4de by Oakes to adjourn, seconded by Bissonett and vote taken this meeting xasad'n a Journed at lo:38 P.M. . _ Michael McGuire, Ci = ,f k ty lwanager - =Yy r�r r r, t of r 1 4.E \ fR Al fr ( 4' a jt _ I K t