Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 12 15 Draft Minutes 04 PR1O� ti 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake. MN 55372 4/lorEsO• REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES October 12, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Hedberg, Councilors McGuire, Morton, Keeney and Thompson, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Johnson, City Engineer/ Inspections Director Poppler, Project Engineer Thongvanh, Community Development Specialist McCabe, Finance Director Uram, Police Chief Elliott, and Recording Secretary Woods. PUBLIC FORUM City Manager Boyles reviewed the process for the public forum and explained that items sched- uled for public hearing are not eligible for discussion on the public forum. Lloyd Erbaugh, (17291 Marshfield Lane SE): Stated while he is involved with the Economic De- velopment Advisor Committee, he is here to comment only on his point of view. He explained the approved tax levy at 11.5% and shared concerns of an increase in the size of our city with the need for additional staff, police officers, and training and modernized equipment. He invited inter- ested parties to a meeting for City budget finance at City Hall from 6:30-8pm, Monday, October 19, 2015. He said at a recent City Council Work Session the Council gave direction to staff to plan two additional people in 2016 and then at the same time gave direction to cut the overall budget by $100,000.00. He requested more information from Council Members to achieve our 2040 Vision. Randy Ries, (3995 Pershing Street SW): Stated he is 5C on the agenda. He explained the histo- ry of his driveway to his two car garage and stated it was built in 1954 and has been used this way since then too. He spoke of adverse possession and lawyer's sentiments regarding this driveway and rights. He explained that the proposed $5400 in expenses is too much for them as he has a disabled daughter and will be paying $12,000 to blacktop the driveway. He explained the development and said the road is a dead end and he commented on land square footage costs. Dean Haugen, (17300 Panama Avenue SE): Mentioned issues with the difference in his assess- ment to his house value and wanted to know how this is possible. Hedberg Stated that there would be a public hearing on this item later this evening and he could address the Council then. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY THOMPSON TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENT- ED. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye © ® ❑x Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. 1 APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY MORTON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEP- TEMBER 28, 2015 MEETING AS PRESENTED. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye © ® ❑x Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA City Manager Boyles reviewed the items on the consent agenda. A. Consider Approval of Claims Listing B. Consider Approval of a Resolution 15-162; Approving Prior Lake-Savage Optimists Club a Premise Permit for Lawful Gambling D. Consider Approval of a Resolution 15-163; Amending City Council Resolution #15-146 Awarding the City's Standardized Professional Services Contract for Surveying for the 2016 Improvement Project (City Project#TRN16-000001) E. Consider Approval of a Resolution 15-164; Authorizing Execution of the City's Standard Construction Contract for the Purchase and Installation of a Shelter at Enclave Park Hedberg: Requested that Item 5C be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY MCGUIRE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH ITMES 5C BE DELIBERATED AT THE END OF REGULAR BUSINESS. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye El IZI Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. PRESENTATIONS No presentation was scheduled. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7A Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution Adopting the Assessment Roll for the 2015 Unpaid Special Charges Finance Director Uram: Explained the Assessment Roll for the 2015 Unpaid Special Charges stating the history, current circumstances, issues, financial impact, alternatives and a recom- mended motion. DRAFT 09 14 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 2 Morton: Asked if this increase is a direct result of the decision that was made last year to discon- tinue turning off the water at the homes in order to expedite collection for delinquent utility charg- es. Finance Director Uram: Replied that probably is the case; he cannot quantify the difference though. Morton: Said she feels it was a bad decision last year and still feels that it is a bad decision this year. Keeney: Asked if this change was made part way through the year last year; resulting in one year being higher as the first year was not a full year. Morton: Said it was done after the Assessment Rolls were done for last year. Keeney: Questioned last year. Morton: Said last year is was $24,000. Either way it has still went up in expediential fashion. Keeney: Replied it would have had to be fore that to have a number to put on last year's roll. He mentioned it was only part of last year. He agreed with Morton that the amount going up is con- cerning. Said this needs clarification, however the issue is what we should deliberate on after we have heard public testimony. MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY THOMPSON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:18PM TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE 2015 UNPAID SPECIAL CHARGES VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. No speakers for the public hearing Diliberation McGuire: He stated viewpoints regarding not shutting off water from a cost stand point. He stated concerns of shutting off a basic service. Keeney: Summarized an email from a property owner with a dispute on a water bill. He asked if this is one of the properties included and is this email letter sufficient to perfect their appeal. City Attorney Johnson: Explained the legal objection, deferrals and the written objection. Keeney: Asked if this email would preserve this persons rights as it is addressed to the Mayor and City Council. Morton: said this person is on the list. Hedberg: Asked if the individual that sent the email has perfected their right of appeal. Johnson: Replied yes as it is directed to the presiding officer on or before the hearing. Morton: Stated concerns of agreement with the policy to collect. She said there is no deterrent and understands collection through property taxes by making the assessment and eventually it will be collected, but it is a long road to hoe when there is no teeth in the policy. Keeney: Stated it is not always an unwillingness to pay and he explained his situation in having an estate managed rental property and in the timing of getting the paper work for the estate the water bill had grown diligent. He mentioned in the process there was a significant amount of cost and time the City had put into turning the water off and back on. With this new process this would not have been an issue. Morton: She explained there are bills exceeding $1,000.00 and felt this was due to an unwilling- ness to pay, not an inability. DRAFT 09 14 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 3 Hedberg: He agrees that cutting off utilities especially in the middle of winter is not good public policy. He is dismayed at the length of the list; however there are several that are well over $1000.00. He feels the policy is the right policy. MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY THOMPSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 15-165 ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE 2015 UNPAID SPECIAL CHARGES VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye © ® ❑x ® ❑x Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. 7B Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution Adopting the Assessment Roll for the Mush- town Road/Maple Lane/Panama Avenue Street Improvement Project(City Project#14-011) Project Engineer Thongvanh: Introduced the Mushtown Road/Maple Lane/Panama Avenue Street Improvement Project, explaining the history, current circumstances, issues, financial im- pact, construction cost alternatives and recommended a motion. He presented the project sched- ule, assessment map, assessment waiver form, building permit, well decommission and pointed out some before and after photos. City Engineer Poppler: Explained the funding table, further assessments, sample payment schedule and the appeal process. Morton: Asked Seng if residents need to turn in the waiver this evening and if so do we have a notary available tonight. Thongvanh: Replied yes and yes we do. Hedberg: Clarified the assessments roll would be finalized on October 26. He questioned the math on the assessment roll. Thongvanh: Explained the septic system credits should be a subtraction not addition and offered apologizes. Keeney: asked if this math adjustment changes the total assessment amount. Thongvanh: Checked and verified the correct assessment amount at $955,931. MOTION BY MCGUIRE, SECOND BY THOMPSON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:41 PM. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ❑x ❑x ® ❑x Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. Dean Haugen, (17300 Panama Avenue SE): He stated he is currently talking with realtors about selling his property. The realtors have told him that they couldn't put an increase in the value of more than $10k for the current assessment that he just got, which means he would have to pay the remainder of the assessment at $25k. He questioned why the drastic difference and why he would need to take that big of a hit right now to move out of his house. He was hopeful to move to pay for the assessment. DRAFT 09 14 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 4 Keeney: Asked for the submittal letter for the record. Hedberg: Asked if he would like to reserve his right to appeal. Haugen: Said if he signs tonight he has no money to go any other route. He stated he feels stuck. Hedberg: Explained to Mr. Haugen he still would have the right to appeal the amount of the as- sessment. Keeney: Pointed out that if he signs the waiver of appeal, in order to get the hook up charge de- ferred, he would not be able to appeal. Maybe it would help to understand the time for the hook up charges and asked when these are due. Poppler: Stated the waiver is for the $5,700 in connection charges which would be incorporated into the assessment roll that will prepare for the next meeting. That is why we need to know to- night if they are interested in this. He mentioned a point of clarification if Mr. Haugen is on Pana- ma, the assessment would not be the $24k, it would be around $13k. Haugen: Stated the one he received at home is estimated at $19,834.00. Seng: Explained the reasoning behind the amount the waiver stating it includes the assessment which comes out to be the $13,8k plus the $5,700.00. Haugen: Stated then he will also be paying for hook up which will be another$5k; making the to- tal $24k. Hedberg: Explained the process is for doing a special benefits appraisal. Tim Kadrlik, (17075 Maple Lane SE): Shared his dislike of public talking and is tired of these meetings. He said it is a nice project but at a cost to him, his family and neighbors. He men- tioned that the assessments with the hook up's being at around $31k; except the hook ups are going to cost about $5k, but rather more like $8,400.00 minimum on top leaving his assessment at $40k and he only paid $89k for his house. He said this will not increase his value of his home that much. He shared concerns of having the assessment meetings after the fact. He spoke of trunk money and said this was grant money that should of helped them and now the trunk fund is gone. He talked of septic credit and stated this credit should have been applied as means to hooking up. He stated the credits give neighbors money to not hook up; he stated this doesn't make sense to him. He asked for an explanation as this has been going on for two years and doesn't seem fair as he has a well and septic that works just fine. He commented about saving money versus spending money. Chris Caskey, (17055 Mushtown Road): Asked for clarification on land acquisition on Panama Avenue. He asked about the City's purchase of right of access and asked if the home owner still owns this land City Attorney Johnson: Stated if it is just a right of access the owner does own the land and asked if this is a fee title or easement acquisition? Thongvanh: replied this area is easement; utility easement through there. The homeowner still owns their land to their property lines and the City own the easement rights to it. Kadrlik: said this land was $272k; he is getting socked for this when he doesn't even live on Pan- ama Avenue. He spoke of Statutes and stated that ordinances say improvements must benefit property owner; he questioned how he benefits from a road he doesn't even live on. He said they sent multiple emails about assessments for these homes and asked why isn't the City providing these numbers regarding benefit appraisals that were done on the properties which were probably paid for by us; If the benefit is there then show us what the value of each property is. He com- pared Panama Avenue versus Mushtown cost and size differences and asked for justification on ratio. He wants to know where his benefit is. Hedberg: Stated one of the people in the audience is asking about the signing of an appeal and needs pen and paper. He stated lets address the questions that have come up tonight. He re- peated one question; how is the special benefit determined? Johnson: Explained special benefits and why this is not a public document, stating this is done on an attorney/client basis and is internal. Hedberg: asked for explanation on the question about septic credits being disincentive. DRAFT 09 14 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 5 Thongvanh: Explained the area was annexed into the City and with the annexation agreement it allows septic systems that are compliant to defer hook ups for three years. If they are compliant they can delay for another three years and they can continue this process until they choose to hook up with the City or until their septic system is no longer compliant. Morton: Asked when was the credit issued. Thongvanh: Replied the credit is calculated based upon the assessment hearing date; we chose to back date this to get the maximum amount of credits for the residents but the credits per the orderly annexation agreement states the assessment hearing date. Morton asked if someone has an operating septic system, could they not have a deferral as well and access to septic system credits? Thongvanh: Replied, yes they can defer. Morton: asked if Thongvanh could explain further on process and time lines that are associated. Thongvanh: Explained the homeowner chooses to get a certified septic system inspector there is a form to fill out and provide the City and County with this inspection which would show if the sep- tic is compliant or non-compliant. Morton: Asked if they are in compliance, what this allows for in deferment on hooking up. Thongvanh: Replied they can defer hook ups from the date of the inspection for three years. Hedberg: Asked if someone elects to defer hook up what happens to their special assessment on the project Thongvanh: replied it still goes forward, there will still be an assessment for this project. It gets certified just like any other assessment but would still have the septic system component that is different. Hedberg: clarified what they would be deferring then would be the hook up charges to the City and Met Council and the private costs that they would pay to hook up so that could be deferred for three years, but the assessment would still go into effect. He asked for the next question regard- ing right-of-way easement acquisitions and how this cost is $272k along Panama Avenue benefit- ed the property owners on Maple Lane or Mushtown. He asked if the Assessment Review Group could addressed this issue and determining the allocation. McGuire: Replied yes we did and every project has some right-of-way acquisition. It is very common to acquire it as an easement rather than fee title and felt it was a normal process. Morton: Stated with the dynamics of this project; the acquisition change from the beginning to the end based on some configuration that was done with the actual system that was implemented and required an additional acquisition and triangular section, but whether or not there was more ac- quisition on Panama versus Mushtown versus Maple she doesn't remember the specifics on this well enough, but did increase the right of way based on configuration and design changes that were implemented as part and parcel of the project. Keeney: Explained the process used is considered one project and is equally spread over the properties as this is the normal policy/procedure. He said maybe we are too far down the road to separate these two projects. Hedberg: Commented on trunk funds; why we have them and how they are used and asked if his logic held water or not. McGuire: Stated the trunk fund was used more for Panama then Maple Lane or Mushtown. Keeney: Stated that it is fair to remind anyone here the right to appeal. Johnson: Explained the appeal/object and name property address and object to this assessment and sign tonight. Hedberg: Asked about a waiver of appeal. Johnson: Said that is a choice; the assessment includes both connection charge and the rest of the assessment. Hedberg: Explained further on the appeal stating this will eliminate the hook up charges in the assessment. DRAFT 09 14 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 6 Keeney: Asked if they choose not to include hookup, when are they required to pay the hookup charges Johnson: Explained there could be a deferral, otherwise within a year. McGuire: Stated he understands the amount is a lot of money, however the assessment group did try to reduce this assessment. Keeney: said this is the day we make the tough decisions, he disagrees with the oversize truck fees and the Mushtown road street improvements are not necessarily wholly benefit the home- owner. He was wondering if the volumes of traffic is homeowner or park related. Panama Road is in place and we are only talking utilities and now have considered to use trunk funds, but it serves a significant but no water trunk funds. He doesn't go along with this distribution of funds. The motivation for this project is to serve the park. He stated what he would like to see on the trunk and water/sewer fund and would like the infrastructure needs to be sent back for detailed work from staff. Mcguire: Stated it is easy to second guess the review group and throw numbers out without re- view. It is very much in line as we stated with the Sunset project. He said the council saw fit and the numbers were ok. He mentioned the numbers are high, but appropriate. Hedberg: Asked about potential acres for additional development further south on Panama. Poppler: Responded on the park south of this area there is only about 15 acres of annexation area that could be served, but consideration of amendments to the annexations agreement, ser- vicing down to 180th Street there then would be about 150 acres, but there are a lot of wetlands and trunk improvements that would be needed and lift stations would need to be put in place. Hedberg: Asked about how many residences are on that 150 acres down to 180th on the east side of Panama. Poppler: He was unsure; maybe about 20-30 parcels. Hedberg: Explained why he is explaining this. Due to annexation is on parcel by parcel annexa- tion by partition. Poppler: Said this is already in the City, but the bigger challenge in this region is the wetland. His clarification on the Trunk Fund and Assessment review committee debated the distribution of the grants dollars. Morton: Explained the sewer credits and questioned the grant on the final water fund. She asked the final timeline is and why it is there. Thongvanh: Explained these timelines stating we have to certify the assessments to the County by November 30; therefore on the next meeting we need to adopt the assessment roll or we will be beyond that time frame. Morton: Asked when do we have to certify to the county? Thongvanh: Explained we have to give a 30 day period. McGuire: Stated we need to adopt something tonight Thongvanh: Clarified something would need to be adopted on October 26. Morton: Question if the consensus is here to review the $26k that we put aside there for the sewer credit and asked if this is something that could be factored in since we are not actually adopting final value until October 26. Thongvanh: Explained the trunk fund and the sewer fund and reducing assessments by about $1,000.00. He stated streets are a little more complicated. Johnson: Explained the requirement by Statute to not go under 20 percent for an assessment for an overall project. Thongvanh: Said it is not at that 25 percent but we can take a look to make sure. Keeney: Commented on the 20 percent of 1.9 million dollars. Thongvanh: Stated they are at about 40 percent right now. Hedberg: Asked if the utility assessments need to be calculated separately or is it total project bases. Johnson: replied total project. DRAFT 09 14 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 7 Hedberg: Explained the percentages reduction. Thompson: Stated she made a spreadsheet on property values on Mushtown road versus as- sessment values and felt it is astronomical for these modest homes. This will be a burden to many of these residents. She likes the ideas of Hedberg and Keeney and questioned if there is anything we can do to reduce permitting fees. Morton: Said that over half of the permit fees get paid to the Met Council and they are typically SAC fees. Thompson: Asked if we can give them longer or a better interest rate. Johnson: Said it is part of our Assessment Policy. McGuire: Said it has been already bonded to this project for 10 year on part of it. Thompson: Expressed the burden on the residence. We need to help these people. Hedberg commented on how this has already been reduced. And this is an old neighborhood and they all have wells and septic and at some point and time they will need to be replaced soon. Replacing wells and septic is very expensive as well and for the same price for the well and septic you get a free street. Thompson: Argued a point stating they are not getting a free street when some are way over priced comparative to the city sewer and water. Hedberg: Commented about Mushtown Road Thompson: Said she has been down Mushtown Road recently and this road is servicing the Park. Morton: Said they could offer to concede back the $6,200 that was held back for sewer credits and we will find another way to fund the sewer credits. Thongvanh: Explained the difference if the sewer credits were held back. Thompson: Said that is better, but can we use more trunk fund money. McGuire: Said we could just pay for the entire project, but that is not practical. Thompson: Said that is extreme; she is not suggesting that. McGuire: Stated at some point someone needs to pay for this and mentioned concern for gen- eral tax payers also and trunk funds. Keeney: Asked what is our per acreage development fees for sewer and water. Poppler: Replied the water acreage is $5,500.00 and the sewer acreage charge is $3,040.00 based on developable acreage. Keeney: Questioned what this pays for. Poppler: Replied with each connection they would pay the $5,600.00. Keeney: Asked if this is to cover all the infrastructure to serve that acre of land typically in that development. Poppler: Replied from there downstream out of the City; yes. Keeney: Stated then the developer would pay additional money to put in the streets and sewer and water and that would be the non-trunk portions and then the final hook up fee on per unit per unit. He stated part of the problem is the developer's costs are similar to ours. He talked about benefiting other properties, the benefits to local benefit and community benefit and how this was being reviewed. McGuire: Replied they were very creative. He said using the amount of dollar funds in trunk funds with but at some point we have to be realistic. He stated Trunk Funds are not free money. Keeney: said he is trying to make a fair value between the property owners involved. He also asked the appraisals afforded these assessments, based on Johnson: Said it is a series of actual appraisals and explained how these appraisals are done. Keeney: Asked where the margin was. Johnson: Replied they ranged from about $30,000.00 to $40,000.00. Thompson: Asked if we had some Trunk Fund money could it be applied to only the Mushtown Road. DRAFT 09 14 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 8 Keeney: Asked for clarification from Thompson's comment stating the oversizing of Mushtown could use the Trunk Fund more than the Trunk Fund for Panama. Thompson: Stated if we increased the Trunk Fund Revenue in this project, can it go to just the Mushtown Road section of the project. Hedberg: Commented on being equal to other projects. He is worried about treating those peo- ple equitably if we receive these estimates below the fair cost. Thompson: Asked if the homes values on Sunset Avenue are as moderate as the home values here. Hedberg: Said Absolutely Thompson: Asked what their assessments were. Thongvanh: Replied it was about $19,000.00 to $20,000.00. He said there was a hundred per- cent future lots and they were assessed $32,000.00. Thompson: Stated it would be nice to get these down just under$20,000.00 and asked if resi- dents cannot afford this and choose not to hook up to City sewer and water, how many years do they have if there well and septic is working and not in failure. Thongvanh: Replied that three years from the date of inspection to defer and you can continue this process with a compliant system. Thompson: Verified that you can keep applying and maybe get 6-10 years out of it. Hedberg: Commented that there is a two part process and this may need further analysis. Thompson: Asked if there is any way to reduce their interest rate. Hedberg: Said it is based on our assessment policy. Johnson: Replied that is correct as we are already bonded for this. He mentioned amending would be concerning. MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY MORTON TO AMEND THE FUNDING SOURCES TO GO BACK TO THE $262,000 NUMBER ON THE TRUNK AND WATER SEWER FUND. Hedberg: Stated this would have the effect of changing the utilities assessment to $12,172. And the street plus utilities to $22,730. And asked Thongvanh if this is correct. Thongvanh: Replied yes, and confirmed the numbers at approximately $12,173. and $22,730. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ❑x ® © ® ❑ Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. Morton: Asked if she could get an idea of where our current fund sits at for this particular point. Uram: Replied he cannot answer this question specifically tonight. Poppler: Suggested an estimated answer; as a part the Capital Improvement Plan he has a cal- culation that shows 2016 projects being at a negative balance of$132,000.00, however is not in- cluding upcoming developments. Morton: Asked if there are any upcoming developments know of. Poppler: stated there has been a couple of developments since this was calculated; Jeffers Pond 8th and one other development. Keeney: Asked if these funds were already deducted from this trunk; included or not included. Poppler: Replied these projects are included. Keeney: Clarified if they were already deducted from that balance. DRAFT 09 14 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 9 Poppler: Stated it is calculated with this. He mentioned the projected balance at the end of 2016 is negative $132,000.00 and said this is his calculation, not factoring in all the... Morton: Agreed, but said inside that number would be the street oversizing fund for the $138,000.00 and asked if we are suggesting another$150,000.00 over the top of that. Keeney: Clarified that the suggestion was to change it to $150,000.00. Morton: Said she was misunderstanding as she assumed this was an additional $150,000.00. Hedberg: Clarified based on our Capital Improvement Program the Street oversize fund by the end of next year will be negative balance and we will have funding challenges. Keeney: Stated that we have known this for a while that our trunk and oversizing fund fees have been a little bit out of whack with our projects and we have postponed our fee study a number of times. He said it is not a surprise to him. McGuire: Commented on the constant nibbling away and stated that we are being fiscally irre- sponsible if we keep nibbling away and keep increasing the City's contribution. Keeney: Commented that we have built something that is so expensive that people in the neigh- borhood cannot afford it and we have done it for the benefit of the people for the community at large, to benefit the park and to benefit the property owners to the south, who wish to develop their land; he stated the only fair thing to do is to put the cost on the people who actually benefit from this, putting $411,000.00 on a tax levy, and the infrastructures that serves the land to the south and the street oversize that serves the community at large are appropriate places to fund this as a matter of policy. He hasn't heard anything that these are calculated by any means other than nibbling until we get to a fair number. He is trying to come to consensus what a fair number is. Hedberg: Stated if you look at the overall project $1.9 million 766 reduced to 704 is paid for by either future development or the general community so that is $1.2 million out of a $1.9 million project is either being paid for by the general tax payer or by future development. He stated he feels that we have really stretched a long way. Keeney: Said when we improved Ridgemont/44/Main Avenue by the park; big huge project in- cluding street lights and etc. that was estimated at $3 million dollars, we didn't assess any of the people that live back on Rutgers that come in and out this way even though it is the only way in and out. It was a road and an improvement that benefited the whole community; it came out of the community funding. This road serves the park, he believes it is highly unfair to get the resi- dents to happen to live along this road to pay so much of it. Hedberg: Stated that $1.2 million paid by future developments and general public is the right mix. MOTION BY KEENEY, SECONDED BY THOMPSON TO AMEND THE STREET OVERSIZE FUND CONTRIBUTION FROM $137,884.00 TO $150,000.00. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ❑ ® ❑ ® ❑x Nay ❑x ❑ © ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. Hedberg: Asked Thongvanh to possibly do a quick calculation if you increase the street oversize fund to $150k from $137,884. And what the change does that do to the street assessment and the street plus utility assessment. Thongvanh: Replied there are 26 street and storm units within the project so doing the math, for every $26k you put into the project there will be a reduction of$1,000 for a straight forward reduc- tion. Street oversize fund of$150K, would be $500.00 per unit. Hedberg: Verified it would be in the neighborhood of$22,250 instead of$22,730. DRAFT 09 14 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 10 Morton: Asked about closing the public hearing. Hedberg: Said this has been discussed with the City Attorney and City Manager and in this case we felt the appropriate thing to do was to close the public hearing, because what is happening between then and now is administrative with no additional content. MOTION BY MORTON, SECONDED BY HEDBERG TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECT STAFF TO REVISE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR ADOPTION ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2015 BASED ON OUR DISCUSSION, ACTION AND INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye © © © ❑x Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. RECESS Hedberg: Called a five minute recess at 8:58 p.m. RECONVENE The Meeting was reconvened at 9:00p.m. 7C Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution Adopting the Assessment Roll for the Credit River Road Street Improvement Project(City Project#TRN-15-000006) Project Engineer Thongvanh presented the Credit River Road Street Improvement Project ex- plaining the history, current circumstances, issues, financial impact, alternative and recommended motions. He defined the agenda, project area, project schedule, assessment map, estimated pro- ject costs, assessments, sample payment schedule, public improvement process and update of TH 13/CR 21 Intersection. Morton: Verified going into this project we knew there was a risk that the County would possibly come in and make an offer on these properties; when we agreed to put in that temporary piece, we knew that it might come down to being hit in this area twice as we didn't know what the timing of the County was, correct? Thongvanh: Said correct. Morton: Asked about the next cycle; whenever the County is done with their portion of it, home- owners will not get hit with the road again; it is this time only, correct, as this is the decision we made a year ago based upon what we knew at the time. Thongvanh: Said correct. MOTION BY MORTON, SECONDED BY THOMPSON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION 15-166; ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR CREDIT RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT 9:08PM VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. DRAFT 09 14 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 11 Larry Shepard, (5290 & 5310 Credit River Blvd): He stated he has two concerns he would like addressed; one being the assessment amount and the appraisal methodology. He accepts there is a requirement that the assessment be less than or equal to the banefit to the property. He stat- ed he also recognizes and appreciates the hard work that the assessment review committee puts into this to be fair to the public and property owner. He doubts the assessment value of $10,500.00 per unit meets the States Statute requiring that the assessment not exceed the spe- cial benefit as measured by the increase in market value due to the improvement. He stated they already have paved streets with curb, sidewalk and storm sewer and City water and sanitary sew- er, so how could the market value go up. He knew the road would be repaved but would not in- crease the market value that much. He noted the assessment as a percentage of the bonding cost is 25 percent and needs to be 20 percent minimum and must also meet the fair market value test. Believes that $8,500.00 would be a little closer per similar projects. He commented on the reasoning of why the assessment appraisal report is not available, stating it was due to the City Attorney recommending a policy of only presenting the report during an assessment challenge in court. He requested consideration of two things: Council direct a written or oral report on the increase of market value be available to the public, secondly he would like the council to consider changing the per unit assessment to $8,400.00 or or 20 percent. He said he does understand the written objections and presented that to the council. He talked about appraiser be present at the assess- ment hearing. Steve Blonigan, (5210 Credit River Road): He read his appeal and stated they feel they are be- ing penalized for being houses only on one side of the street. David Busse, (4958 Credit River Road): He clarified the comments on County acquired land, doesn't feel proper channels were followed. Talked about the prior meeting. Felt it didn't have a lot to do with road. Deliberation McGuire: Shared concerns with houses on one side of the street and stated the reduction and the benefits to the property. Morton: Asked Thongvanh to explain the houses on both sides. Thongvanh: Explained the project cost and how it is divided. He stated it is comparable with other projects. Morton: Asked how long has this project been on this CIP. Poppler: Answered 2013 and slated for 2017 but moved up due to utility issues. Morton: Asked if it was because a system failure for this particular area. Poppler: Replied it could be if everything developed at a rapid pace. Morton: Commented on based upon the development that was still there was viewed as a sys- tem failure and this information provided to the City back in 2005. Poppler: Replied in our Comprehensive Plan it was stated in 2003-2004. Hedberg: To answer Mr. Busse's question; this is mainly a utility issue and the total dollar amount is from utility improvements particular on the sewer. Keeney: Commented on a portion of this including the estimated alignment for future intersection changes and having the idea that this road will be efficient for future development. Thongvanh said that is correct. Keeney: asked that we had not been realigning this road we could have gotten by with a lot less concrete work and curb work. We could have done utilities and new payment without doing all the storm sewer, curb and gutter. Thongvanh: Replied that due to sanitary sewer being in the middle of the street, water on the other, we cannot save the curb for utilities, but if you are digging this deep you are going to lose the entire road. DRAFT 09 14 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 12 Keeney: Stated so the realignment is not really a factor in adding to cost and some of the right- of-way acquisition is not included in the assessed amounts rather coming out of the City's and County's portion. Poppler: Said the County is funding that property acquisition for future project. And the City is contributing a portion. Keeney: Said as if we are doing an intersection project and not a neighborhood street project. Hedberg: Question of why was this started without the property acquisition being completed and answered the result of this is the westerly end of Credit River Road extending at Evanston will be dirt road for another season. Poppler: Said when the feasibility study we asked the County do we want to do the property ac- quisition and build the road at that location now and we got a negative answer; to go forward, they changed their mind a few months down the line and we shifted gears. We talked about this at the Assessment Review Committee. He said Property Acquisition can take a long time. The City and County entered in a cooperative agreement for this portion of the roadway. McGuire: Answered Shepard's comments about appraisals and feels that this should be looked at. He would like to see them disclosed and would like to talk about sharing this information. Hedberg: Said is it appropriate for staff to write a report Thompson: Questioned if the curb and gutter were already there, how does the cost come to $10,000? Poppler: Replied the appraiser looks at the before and after conditions and this is what they de- termined as well as being consistent with other projects. Keeney: Commented on other properties that have been accessed stating these have also been properties of where right-of-way has been acquired, correct. Thongvanh: Correct and commented on the 3-4 years of a gravel streets, stating this should be only through the winter and be taken care of next spring. MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY MCGUIRE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 15-166; ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL AS SUBMITTED FOR THE CREDIT RIVER ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CITY PROJECT#TRN-15- 000006) Hedberg: Explained the appeal process. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ❑x ® ® © ❑x Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. RECESS Hedberg: Called a five minute recess at 9:35 p.m. RECONVENE The Meeting was reconvened at 9;38 p.m. 7D Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution Adopting the Reassessment Roll for the Sun- set Avenue Street Improvement Project(City Project#13-011) Project Engineer Thongvanh introduced the Sunset Avenue Street Improvement Project ex- plaining the history, current circumstances, issues, financial impact, and alternatives and recom- mended a motion. DRAFT 09 14 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 13 Morton: Clarified the reassess due to the construction costs reduced and asked for explanation on why we would reassess. • Thongvanh: Explained the savings in street costs McGuire: Stated that we have never heard of giving back assessments. MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY THOMPSON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE REASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE SUNSET AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT OF 2015 AT 9:45pm VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye Nay El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. No person stepped forward to speak. Deliberation: Keeney: Asked if there were any appeals of this assessment originally. Poppler: Said there were, they gave their written notice to the City Council, but did not perfect it at District Court. Keeney: Asked if this gives them another opportunity to appeal again. Johnson: Replied yes. Kenney: Asked if there was anyone here to appeal. Johnson: Replied there is not. MOTION BY MORTON, SECOND BY MCGUIRE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 15-167; ADOPTING THE REASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE SUNSET AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CITY PROJECT#13-011) VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye © © ® D Nay ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. OLD BUSINESS No old business was scheduled. NEW BUSINESS 9A Consider Approval of an Ordinance Amending Section 1101, General Provisions, of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance Related to Fences MOTION BY MORTON, SECONDED BY THOMPSON TO DEFER ITEM 9A TO THE NEXT MEETING AND DELIBERATE IMMEDIATELY ON 5C. DRAFT 09 14 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 14 VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS / COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS 5C. City Engineer Poppler introduced the consideration to approve a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the city Manager to execute a non-exclusive permit for driveway encroachment with Randy Ries and Roberta Latham. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, financial impact alternatives and recommended a motion. Keeney: Stated he doesn't feel this is identical to the 2011 project and he stated the family has owned this land for a long time and this particular home has been there since 1954. He is in agreement with option number 2 Thompson: Asked if the employee's time has already been paid leaving only the attorney's time. McGuire: Replied he is in agreement with the $1500.00. Keeney: Stated he is in agreement with this since the driveway was there before the park, how- ever he doesn't want this to be precedence setting. This specific situation is different and agrees with option 2. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECOND BY MCGUIRE FOR RESOLUTION 15-168; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A NON-EXCLUSIVE PERMIT FOR DRIVE- WAY ENCROACHMENT WITH RANDY RIES AND ROBERTA LATHAM WITH AN AMEND- MENT TO THE RECITAL NUMBER 3 TO READ THE CITY SHALL BE REIMBURSED FOR THE PERMIT BY RANDY RIES AND ROBERTA LATHAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,500.00. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye © 0 Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The motion carried. ADJOURNMENT With no further business brought before the Council, a motion was made by MORTON and se- conded by THOMPSON to adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting adjourned at 9:57p.m. Frank Boyles, City Manager DRAFT 09 14 15 City Council Meeting Minutes 15