City Council Minutes 08-13-1984MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
August 13, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Jack Maxwell, Fran Fair,
Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus.
Members Absent: None.
The regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council was duly
held at 7:30 P.M., Monday, August 13, 1984, in the City Council
Chambers.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion by Fair, second by Blonigen, and carried unanimously
to approve the minutes of the July 23, 1984, City Council meeting.
3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests and Complaints.
Ms. Marilyn Frie appeared before the Council to present the
following petition:
"We live along Golf Course Road (formerly County Road 39
West) and because of the increased auto, bicycle, and pedestrian
traffic along this road, we are asking the following of
the City Council: 1) Reduce the speed limit from 45 mph
to 30 mph along the entire length of the road that is within
the City limits. 2) Enforce the speed limit. 3) Designate
it as a "no passing" area. 4) Level and blacktop the
shoulder or widen the road to form a pedestrian/bicycle
lane."
The City Council directed the question to Public Works Director
Simola, who stated that all responsibility for County Road 39
lies with the County. He noted that the speed limit reduction
would involve the Minnesota Department of Transportation since
they are the ones who regulate urban speed limits. Maus felt
that this petition should be passed on immediately to the County
Commission and request that they take action on as many of the
four items as possible. He stated that he realized the County
might take some time to blacktop the shoulder or create a pedestrian/bicycle
lane; but they could immediately address the speed limit reduction,
the enforcement, and the no passing designation. Motion by
Maus, second by Fair, and carried unanimously directing City
staff to send a letter to the County Commission addressing the
petition as submitted and endorsing the requests of the petitioner.
Council Minutes - 8/13/84
Mayor Grimsmo made an announcement that Fulfillment Systems,
Inc., would be holding their groundbreaking ceremony at 9:30 A.M.,
Thursday, August 16, 1984. He encouraged as many Council members
as was able to attend.
4. Public Hearing - Cable Communications Franchising.
The Mayor convened a public hearing on the proposals submitted
by Rite Cable Company and Dow -Sat of Minnesota. There was no
one present in the audience to speak at the hearing. City Administrator
Eidem, Monticello's representative to the Sherburne Wright Counties
Cable Communications Commission, gave a brief summary of the
process to date. He noted that Rite Cable Company was unanimously
selected by the 10 -city Commission but that there were some
reservations by all members with respect to projected household
penetration. He explained that the franchise ordinance was
in the drafting stage and that the concern over penetration
and a possible reduction in services is being addressed in that
ordinance. Eidem also noted that Rite Cable had provided an
excellent proposal and that their references showed them to
be a reputable firm. There being no other comment or questions
with respect to cable, the Mayor closed the hearing.
5. Public Hearing - Proposed Assessment Roll on the Improvements
of Hart and Cedar Street.
City Administrator Eidem provided a brief background on how
the assessment roll was arrived at. He noted that the total
project cost for the bond issue was $170,000.00, and of that
amount 65.60 ($111,468.00) was attributable to Hart Boulevard
while the balance of $58,532.00 (34.4%) was attributable to
Cedar Street. Eidem noted that on Hart Boulevard, since a portion
of the project did not involve the installation of curb and
gutter, the cost of street and the cost of curb and gutter had
to be separated. After making the separation of cost, staff
took 200 of the projected total to determine the amount that
would be assessed, that being $22,294.00. He then stated that
the assessable footage for street construction was 1,947 linear
feet, and the assessable footage for curb and gutter was 1,512
linear feet. He stated that by dividing the total footage into
the respective project costs resulted in the cost per foot.
Those costs he noted to be $10.06 for street construction and
$1.79 for curb and gutter construction. Eidem then proceeded
to explain how the total assessable footage was arrived at indicating
that each property's width or frontage was determined to be
the width at the setback line as stipulated in the assessment
ordinance. He also noted that the property owned by Bondhus
on the south side of Hart Boulevard, for the purposes of street
construction only, was reduced by exactly one-half since the
eastern end was determined to be unbuildable and, consequently,
-2-
Council Minutes - 8/13/84
unassessable. Eidem then addressed the assessment that was
arrived at for the McConnon, Soltis, and Bondhus property.
He indicated that they were somewhat troublesome areas since
they were irregularly shaped lots. He stated that using the
ordinance stipulation that assessment be determined by setback
width, he extended the property lines of the Soltis and McConnon
properties to generate an assessment of 66 feet for McConnon
and 198 feet for Soltis. He indicated that the Bondhus assessment
on the north side was accordingly reduced so as to not double
assess for the same frontage. With that, Eidem concluded his
initial presentation. Mr. Soltis addressed the Council stating
that he felt his assessment was unfair due to the configuration
of the Bondhus property and that he was being assessed for 198
feet that did not front on the street. He indicated that he
only had approximately 20 feet that fronted on the street.
He questioned whether or not the parcel for which he was being
assessed could be built on to someone else's benefit rather
than his. Eidem explained that that parcel could not be severed
from the other parcel to become an independent building lot.
Eidem stated that in the staff's determination, while preparing
the assessment roll, they had followed the ordinance stipulation
about using setback line and concluded that Mr. Soltis, having
five lots, though not fronting on Hart Boulevard, would derive
a property benefit at least equal to or better than the assessment
involved. Councilmember Maus raised a question as to whether
or not it wouldn't be more sensible or more likely for the parcel
in question to be attached to the Soltis property for the purpose
of subdividing. Eidem indicated that that would be a more likely
possibility than a simple subdivision by Bondhus. Mr. McConnon
raised the issue that the real benefit for the street lies with
the hospital, clinic, and City Sewage Treatment Plant and that
as a result of the increased traffic from that area, they should
be paying for the reconstruction of the street since they are
responsible for the deterioration of the street. Eidem responded
that the assessment policy does not call for differentiation
in commercial or industrial uses from residential. He noted
that assessments are determined by increased value to the property.
He stated that driving benefit was not the foundation of assessments,
but rather increased value to property, and consequently, no
differentiation need be made for varying land uses. McConnon
then raised a question that if value increases with the construction
of a new street, wouldn't the reverse be true for the deterioration
of a street. Eidem stated that that very likely could be true,
but that in this case the project involved a substandard street
that had not previously been assessed and was not designed to
withstand urban traffic loads. Eidem stated that this was really
a glorified gravel road that was now being designed to meet
urban standards. Mr. Soltis repeated that he found the assessment
very unfair in that he was paying for frontage owned by another
party and had no control over the use. Again, Eidem stated
that it was a problem area and that staff followed the letter
-3-
Council Minutes - 8/13/84
of the assessment ordinance in order to determine how to handle
the matter. He went on to state that upon completing the roll
and reviewing the assessments against the various properties,
it was staff's position that the assessments for the respective
properties were not out of line and would, in fact, generate
a property value increase that was equitable if not in excess
to the proposed assessment. The Mayor asked if there were other
comments on the Hart Boulevard assessment roll. There were
none. The Mayor then asked Eidem to review the Cedar Street
Improvement and proposed assessment. Eidem noted that the project
cost for Cedar Street was determined to be $58,532.00. He stated
that of that amount, $3,600.00 was for the installation of sewer
and water to the Wilbur Eck property and that that amount would
be deferred until development of the property. The required
20% to be assessed of the adjusted total of $54,932.00 came
to $10,986.40. Eidem noted that the assessable footage was
determined to be 1,037 feet and that when the assessable footage
was divided into the assessable cost, the cost per foot came
out to be $10.60. Eidem then reviewed the affected property
owners, there being only three, to -wit, Wilbur Eck, Reinert
Construction, and the City of Monticello. The Mayor asked if
there was anyone present to discuss the assessment on Cedar
Street. There were none. The Mayor asked if there were any
further questions with respect to the assessment roll. Fran
Fair asked if the City staff had reviewed the assessment roll
with the City Attorney before presenting it to the Council.
Eidem stated they had not. There being no other comments, the
Mayor closed the hearing.
6. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the Assessment Roll for
the Improvement of Hart and Cedar.
Motion by Fair, second by Blonigen, and carried unanimously
that upon review and approval by the City Attorney, the resolution
adopting and setting the assessment roll be adopted. See Resolution 1984 #35.
7. Consideration of a Resolution Ordering the Improvement of Hart
Boulevard and Cedar Street.
Councilmember Maxwell asked if the resolution ordering the improvement
should also be contingent upon City Attorney review of the previous
agenda item. Eidem stated that he saw no reason to make the
following resolutions contingent since the assessment roll would
still be established and a minimum of 20% would need to be assessed.
He noted that individual assessments might change if something
was found to be out of the ordinary but that the total would
not change and, consequently, the project can be ordered. Motion
by Maxwell, second by Blonigen, and carried unanimously to adopt
the following resolution ordering the improvement of Hart and
Cedar. See Resolution 1984 #36.
MM
Council Minutes - 8/13/84
8. Consideration of a Resolution Ordering the Sale of Public Improvement
Bonds for the Improvement of Hart and Cedar.
Chris Chale, Attorney representing Holmes and Graven, was present
to discuss the bids for the $170,000.00 Public Improvement Bonds.
She noted that the following bids had been received on this
issue:
Dain, Bosworth
8.6937
Piper, Jaffrey
8.84
Alison, Williams
8.85
Moore, Juran
8.95
1st Mpls.
8.96
M. H. Novick
9.02
Juran, Moody
9.06
Ms. Chale presented the resolution authorizing the issuance
of the bonds in its final form. Mayor Grimsmo asked Eidem if
he recommended the issue. Eidem stated that based on the recommendation
of Springsted that the issue would be successful and that staff
supported Springsted's recommendation. Motion by Maus, second
by Fair, and carried unanimously to adopt the following resolution
awarding the bond sales to Dain, Bosworth at an interest rate
of 8.6937. See Resolution 1984 #37.
9. Consideration of a Resolution Ordering the Improvement of County
Road 75.
Mayor Grimsmo stated that this project had been a long time
in developing, that it had come before the City, been referred
to the County, come back to the City for preparations of plans
and spec's and bids, and then finally referred back to the County
for final review and acceptance. He noted that the decision
now lay with the Council to order the improvement. The Mayor
asked John Badalich of OSM if the project was still feasible
and ready to go. Badalich indicated that it was and that the
milling and removal of the existing surface exceeded the engineer's
estimate, as did the cost of oil. Badalich noted that this
was the reason why the actual bid exceeded the feasibility estimate.
Councilmembers raised the question as to timing of the job and
would the quality of the road surface suffer as a result of
cooling weather in the fall. Badalich stated that he did not
see any difficulty with that and that the job could conceivably
be completed in a month's time, although the contract was allowing
seven weeks to account for inclement weather and other unavoidable
delays. Motion by Blonigen, second by Maus, and carried unanimously
adopting the following resolution ordering the improvement of
Councy Road 75. See Resolution 1984 #38.
-5-
Council Minutes - 8/13/84
10. Consideration of a Resolution Awarding the Contract for the
Improvement of Hart Boulevard, Cedar Street, and County Road 75.
Mayor Grimsmo noted that all other steps being clearly resolved,
it was now essential to formally award the contract to the lowest
bidder. Motion by Maus, second by Fair, and carried unanimously
to adopt the following resolution awarding the contract to Buffalo
Bituminous. See Resolution 1984 #39.
11. Consideration of a Resolution Selling Tax Increment Financing
Bonds - Key Tool & Plastic, Inc.
Chris Chale, of Holmes and Graven, again spoke to the Council
with respect to the bids for the Key Properties Tax Increment
Financing proposal. She noted that Key Properties had run into
some timing conflicts and other difficulties in arranging for
development financing. She noted that since the financing was
somewhat precarious, Key Properties had been reluctant to sign
a Development Agreement or grant any guarantees to assist in
the retirement of the Tax Increment Bonds in the event that
the project should fall through or simply not develop in a timely
fashion. She noted that, lacking such a guarantee statement,
the obligation of retiring the debt would fall on ad valorem
tax levy. Eidem noted that the Tax Increment District could
remain in place and that the only step that would require repeating
would be the bids for Tax Increment Bonds. He stated that he
felt the project could still develop in 1984 and hopes to be
able to assist in the preparation of the development and the
final certification of the District. Ms. Chale noted that Key
Properties was actively pursuing their financing and had, in
fact, incurred debt to take the project this far. She noted
that the project had not been cancelled, but simply was a victim
of unfortunate timing. Mayor Grimsmo raised a question as to
whether or not the City had been over eager and perhaps exceeded
itself with respect to this project. Eidem stated that the
process had not taken any special steps to accommodate Key Tool,
that no special meetings were held to speed the process up,
but rather some unfortunate absences had caused a delay in Key
Tool's packaging their private financing. Eidem stated that
the staff recommended rejection of all bids and that there be
a recall for bids at a later date when all other financing has
been firmly established. Motion by Fair, second by Blonigen,
and carried unanimously to reject all bids on the $100,000.00
Tax Increment Financing Bond project.
12. Consideration of Approving a Proposed Farmers Home Administration
Elderly Housing Project.
Allen Pelvit, Executive Secretary of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority, presented the Council with a brief review of the
ash
Council Minutes - 8/13/84
proposed project. He noted that a partnership comprised of
Metcalf, Larson, and Barthel had proposed a 31 -unit elderly
housing project to be funded through the Farmers Home Administration
515 Project. He stated that Lots 13, 14, and 15 in Block 51
was the subject property of the proposal and that this project
had been in the works for nearly two years, although the developer
had changed. He noted that the partnership had received an
option on the land from the HRA in a non-refundable amount of
$2,400.00 and that the sale price would be $62,000.00. He stated
that the project application, because a Farmers Home Project
receives a reduced assessment, requires a letter of support
from the City Council. He stated that the project had received
the support of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and that
the application was about to be presented to Farmers Home Administration.
Councilmember Fair asked if there was any Tax Increment Financing
involved with the project. Eidem responded that no Tax Increment
was involved with this project, nor was any other kind of municipal
financial assistance. He stated that the only benefit in this
project involved the reduced assessment for Farm Home Projects
as stipulated by the Minnesota Legislature and Department of
Revenue. Motion by Blonigen, second by Maxwell, and carried
unanimously to direct staff to prepare a letter of support for
the elderly housing project proposal to be developed on Lots
13, 14, and 15 of Block 51.
13 & 14. Consideration of Rankings and Bids from Architectural Firms.
Mayor Grimsmo opened the discussion saying that it was his understanding
that a publicly owned building requires good design and sound
planning. He stated that he realized there were differing opinions
with respect to utilizing the services of an architect and wished
to open the matter to discussion. Councilmember Maus stated
that he had been one of the proponents of utilizing construction
and design facilities of an established contractor but that
he wished to hear what Councilmembers Maxwell and Blonigen had
to say before going further. Councilmember Maxwell said he
would like to see an architectural firm brought on board for
the Fire Hall design. He stated he felt it was essential that
the City use an architect, but it should be kept in mind that
the City needs a quality, long-lasting and serviceable building
as a Fire Hall but that the City does not need a Fire Hall with
the design standards of City Hall and the Public Library. Maxwell
went on to state that in lieu of the very high land costs, it
might be most advisable to re -open discussion and investigation
of remodeling and expanding the existing Fire Hall or even review
the possibility of demolishing the existing Fire Hall and rebuilding
on the same site, since the City already owns the property.
Councilmember Blonigen agreed that remodeling might be the best
alternative in light of those land costs. Councilmember Fair
-7-
Council Minutes - 8/13/84
raised a question that even if we investigate remodeling or
rebuilding at the same site, would the City still not require
the services of an architect to make certain determinations.
She indicated that she felt it would be worthwhile even if the
City had to pay an extra fee for a special remodeling and expansion
study. Councilmember Blonigen asked where the urgency with
the Fire Hall lie. It was his opinion that there was no real
need for urgent reaction to Fire Hall construction. He acknowledged
the desirability of conducting a referendum in conjunction with
the November General Election but did not see that that made
the process absolutely essential. He felt that it would be
best to delay action to perhaps look further at what the City
needed before engaging an architectural firm. Councilmember
Maus suggested that perhaps the City moved too rapidly without
covering all the possible alternatives internally first. Doug
Pitt, representing the Fire Department, stated that even if
additional land is selected for review, the question will continue
to exist as to what to do with the present site. With respect
to the notion that the existing Fire Hall location cannot accommodate
a major growth of the City, he suggested that a second and additional
site be looked at for satellite stations of the Fire Department.
Mayor Grimsmo said that regardless of the results of a site
selection process, he saw no reason to wait. He noted that
the process may not be complete in time for the referendum but
that the site analysis and review can, in fact, begin immediately
in his estimation. Eidem explained to the Council that the
RFP as submitted had delineated in a general way the extent
of duties required under Phase I and that after a final firm
was selected, the information that the Council would require
of the firm would be set out in detail. Motion by Fair, second
by Maxwell, and carried unanimously to invite TKDA, Inc., Boarman
Architecture, CMA, and the Zack Johnson Group to a special meeting
to be held at 4:30 P.M. on Monday, August 20, 1984, for the
purpose of interviewing and selection of an architectural firm
to prepare a preliminary study on the construction of a Fire
Hall.
15. There being no other business, the Council meeting was adjourned.
I---- -h-
Wim.- L,====
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator