Loading...
City Council MInutes 05-24-1983MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL May 24, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen, Jack Maxwell. Members Absent: None. 2. Approval of the Minutes. A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on May 9th, 1983, as presented. 4. Consideration of a Presentation by MN/DOT Relative to Con- struction of a New Highway Bridge and Proposed Lighting of the Existing Highw�ridge. Recently, the City of Monticello requested that the Minnesota Department of Transportation consider repairing or replacing the Highway 25 bridge sidewalk lighting which has not worked for a number of years. Mr. James Weingartz, preliminary design engineer for MN/DOT was present at the Council Meeting and explained the State's proposal to light, not only the sidewalk, but the entire bridge for both pedestrians and traffic. Mr. Weingartz noted that the original estimate for the installation of 10 lighting fixtures to light the traffic lanes and 5 lights for the pedestrian sidewalk was estimated at $.17,100 and since the sidewalk lighting amounted to one-third of the light fixtures, the State proposed that the City of Monticello pickup one-third of the construction cost or approximately $5,700. In addition, the City of Monticello would be responsible after construction for all power con- sumption for the sidewalk lighting thereafter. Prior to the meeting, MN/DOT was notified that the City was not necessarily interested in seeing the roadway lite, but was only concerned about the sidewalk and felt that the $5,700 was too costly. Mr. Weingartz also noted that he reanalyzed the cost associated with installing the 5 light fixtures for the sidewalk and if just the cost for the new fixtures and materials was used, the City would be responsible for $4,200 or approximately 250 of the total lighting project cost. - 1 - Council Minutes - 5/24/83 It was basically the Council's consensus that since a new bridge is being proposed by the State within the next 4 to 6 years, they were not in favor of the State spending $17,000 to light the existing bridge or for the City to spend 4 to 6 thousand dollars to light just the sidewalk. Public Works Director, John Simola, was directed by the Council to investigate what it would cost to get the existing lighting in operation, if possible, and to re- port back to the Council within two weeks. No action was taken by the Council regarding approving or dis- approving of the lighting project at the present time, but will be made at the next Council Meeting. Mr. Weingartz also reviewed with the Council MN/DOT's proposal for a new bridge that is now in the planning stages. It was noted that approximately 10,000 cars per day now use the Hwy 25 bridge and the preliminary plans are to possibly upgrade Hwy 25 from the river to the interstate by widening the roadway for four lane traffic. A number of alternatives have been studied in regard to the new bridge alignment which would probably be located directly adjacent to the existing structure. It was also noted by Mr. Weingartz that since Hwy 25 is a State constitutional highway, the possibility was remote that the highway could be relocated to a different location outside of the City limits as it would take an act of the State legislature to change the routing of the present Highway 25. It was noted that the tentative plans call for informational public hearings to be held within the next few months regarding the proposed new bridge and that if all went well, it would be at least 1985 or 1986 before construction could start on the bridge which would take two years to complete. 5. Ed Reilly - Sewer Problems. Mr. Ed Reilly, who resides at 612 East River Street, was present at the meeting to request reimbursement from the City for cost incurred in trying to locate his sewer service stub at his home. City water and sewer depart- ment personnel marked a location along the boulevard by his home where they thought the sewer stub should be located and Mr. Reilly's contractor, Schluender Plumbing, excavated this location but could not find the sewer pipe. The City then rechecked the sewer and water maps and found an error and restaked at a new location within 212 to 3 feet of the actual sewer line pipe. Although the second staking was within a few feet of the actual location, Schluender Plumbing still was unable to find the service Council Minutes - 5/24/83 and began digging a trench near the house in an effort to find the sewer pipe to determine its actual location. Mr. Reilly requested that the City reimburse him for all costs associated with digging the first hole which also damaged two Elm trees which will probably die in the near future. He requested that the City remove the existing trees and pay for the restoration of the first hole and also pay for the restora- tion of the third excavation near the house that would not have been necessary had the second staking been accurate. Mr. Reilly noted that he was not able to have his contractors at the meeting and since they would be more familiar with the actual work they performed, he requested that possibly the City Council table any action on his request until the next meeting to enable all parties to bein attendance. It was the Council consensus to table this item until the next meeting. 7. Consideration of Overlay on Oakwood Drive (Gould Brothers Service Road). John Simola, Public Works Director, reviewed with the Council the completed plans and specifications for the overlaying of Gould Brother's Service Road with a two inch overlay and re - graveling the shoulders. The estimated cost of this work is $14,402. Mr. Simola noted that the plans and specifications also included an option for using approximately 600 feet of reinforcing fabric under the overlay in a test area to see if this material helps prevent the roadway from deteriorating due to cracks and water seepage. This additional fabric re- inforcing material would add an additional $2,250 to the total project cost bringing the total to $16,652. A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried to approve the plans and specifications as presented for overlaying the service road and to authorize advertising for bids with and without the option of the reinforcing fabric. 8. Consideration of Proposed Reassessment of the 78 -Improvement Project. A few months ago, some property owners assessed under the 1978 Improvement Project for sewer and water and street improvements requested the Council to consider reassessing the original assessments over a longer period of time rather than 5 years as initially assessed. A majority of the property owners were having difficulty in meeting the large payments and were becoming delinquent. The initial petition - 3 - Council Minutes - 5/24/83 by the property owners requested that the assessments be pro- rated over a longer period of time such as 20 years. The City Staff along with its fiscal consultants, Springsted, Inc., have been reviewing the assessments and preparing alterna- tive assessment rolls using various options. A new assessment roll was prepared for the propertyown.er's review that amortized the original assessment over a 20 year period of time but would have a balloon at the end of 10 years. The group of property owners affected by the 78-1 assessment presented to the Council the following proposal for re- assessment: 1. Change the assessment basis to a 20 year amortization with a 10 year balloon. 2. The property owners would agree to pay all back assessments under the 20 year schedule that were due for the years 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 based on an interest rate of 6-2%. 3. Agree to the remaining principal balance to be assessed at 712% for the next six years. 4. Requested that the City waive all penalties of all de- linquent assessments. 5. Agreement of all parties involved to pay assessments in full as lots are sold and certificate of occupancy is issued. Discussion was held by the Council on whether the City should consider waiving the existing penalties on delinquent payments for the past three years and it was recommended that as an alternative, the City would agree to add the delinquent penalties to the unpaid principal balance that would be spread over the remaining six years of the assessments. In addition, it was recommended that the property owners be responsible for all costs incurred in preparing new assessment rolls and con- sulting fees incurred to date. These additional charges would also be prorated amongst the property owners and added to their assessment balances. In light of these compromises, the interest rate on the assessments for the next six years would remain at 61-2% interest as originally certified. A majority of the property owners have indicated a willingness to participate in the reassessment proposed, and as a result, a motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair and unanimously carried to authorize the reassessment of the 78-1 Improvement Project to all property owners affected under the following conditions: Council Minutes - 5/24/83 1. The assessment roll would be based on a 20 year amortization schedule with a balloon after 10 years. Only the amount of the first 10 years including interest will be certified to the County Auditor for collection with the balloon payment to be guaranteed to the City by execution of individual contracts with the property owners. 2. The property owners must bring current all back assessments that would be due under the 20 year amortization schedule for the years 1980, 1981 1982 and 1983. 3. The interest rate on the future assessments will be at the current 61-2% rate. 4. The current penalties on delinquencies will be added to the principal balance owing for each property owner and amortized over the remaining 6 years. 5. All expenses incurred by the City to accomplish this readjustment shall be prorated and added to remaining principal balance and amortized over the next 6 years. 6. All current and future assessments will be paid in full within 120 days of when lots are sold. Special cases may be proposed to the City Council for their review. 9. Approval of Bills for Month of May. A motion was made by Maus, seconded by Maxwell and unani- mously carried to approve the bills for the month of May as presented. See Exhibit #1. NOTE: From this time on, Council Member Maus was not in attendance. 10. Nomination for League of Minnesota Cities Board of Directors. City Administrator, Tom Eidem, informed the Council that he has been nominated for the position on the Board of Directors for the League of Minnesota Cities. - 5 - Council Minutes - 5/24/83 A motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus and unanimously carried to approve of the City Administrator's participation en the Board of Directors for the League of Minnesota Cities if Mr. Eidem should be elected. 11. Consideration of Wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent Position_ City Administrator noted that it was the Staff's recommendation that Mr. Albert Meyer, present lead operator at the Waste- water Treatment Plant, be promoted to Wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent to fill the position of Mr. Jim Miller, who will be resigning effective June 3, 1983. A motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen and unanimously carried to promote Mr. Albert Meyer to the position of Wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent effective June 16th, 1983, with Mr. Meyer being under a 6 month probation period for the position. It was noted that prior to Mr. Meyer's starting date, the Council will be reviewing and setting the salary for the position. Meeting Adjourned. Rick Wolfstelle Assistant Administrator - 6 -