Loading...
10/10/1961 - 00023810� � Thomas S. Si�vis 2100 Indiana Avenue North Minneapolis 21� Minnesota HEATING MooneyS� Incorporated 2816 Harriet Avenue South Minneapolis� Mir_nesota MASOYQEiY Valley Masonry� Incorporated 5720 4�ayzata Blvd. Minneapolis� Minnesota I�! OV ING Dale Movers� Incorporated 7816 Central A�enue Northeast Minneapolis 21� Minnesota Doepke Buildi�.g Movers� Inc. 5920 West �Oth Street Minneapolis, Minnesots FLaSTERING Mooney's� Incorporated 2816 Harriet Avenue South M9nneapalisy Minnesota by: Z'r�omas 8. Silvis Rene�7a1 by: Bernard P. Nooney New by: Lloyd S. Bea1 by: Dale Peterson New Renewal by: William H. Doepke New by: Bernatd P, Mooney New Seconded by Idee. Upon a voice vote� there �eing no nays, the motion carried unani��ously. }�'Oi�?D OF AFPEALS ti.INUTES: Mr. Elrrer Kruize was present to hear the Council's action on this variance. Motion by Nee to f'o11o�r the recommendation of' the Board of Appeals and deny tl�is variance. ueconded t,y Wolke, U��on a volce �ote� there being no nays� the motion carried unanimously. 1�TOTE: All other items on the agenda for October 3� 19oI� were not taken up at this meeting� because of lacY of time� and wi11 be cor.tinued to a later date. ADJOU� NMENT • t'Iayor Greig declared the meeting adjcurned. Respectfully subuitted: � �I i , </,�y j� � �/ ,!_,�� %/�GL(1-b'-��t.�C�%J2��//// U�JKr(iL�w'-CSZ�v/ en o y . amuelson Acting Secretary to the Council �^ l�!-G� M0.YOR T, E. Gre2� SPECIAL COUNCIL METZI,�G - OCTOEER 10� 1�?61. A special seeting of the City Council was called to order t�y P•4ayor Greig at 8:22 P.M,� at Hs,yes School. RCLL CALL: Men!bers Present: P-.ember Absent: Greig� Johanson� Nee, Wo1ke Sheridan 29 �� 0 FUEI�IG riEARIPdG - ASSESSNtENT - S1�7&SS�r�6: It was stated by the City Attorney that there i,�as no need to read the notice of pul,llc hearing since it had been read at the previous meet- ing� but that it could be read� 3f anyone ��ished it. Councilman Nee asked the Mayor to have tl-,e Cit,y Attcrney define the purpose of a public hear�ng oS Lhis t,yre� as far �s valid objections� legalit,y� ben��fitsy etc, Mr, Kohlan gave this explanation at this point in the meeting. He also stated that after hearing the oi�jections of the property oumers relativ� to their assessment� if' the Council feels that thesT have a valid objection� the Council can dlrect tne City Clerk ' to r•e-calculate the assessnient. Houiever, if the propertq o��ner is not satisfied wzth the Ceuncil's decision on the assessment� he may file a notice of appe2l� 20 days after the date the assessment is cor�firrned� iS his objection is valid. Mr, Ray I�1cAfee, 1jE�0 Hillcrest L'rive� was present and stated that they could not understand why they could not ob�ect at this hearing about the ts-pe of work dane by the contractors} and wYiy they should be assessed far somet'�,ing that has not been clone properly. Mr. Kahlan stateu� that at t�is Y:earingy the r�te of' assessment is the only item for consider- ation the �enefit ynu receive from your assessment. He stated that the bids are let in accordance i��ith the plar_s ard speci£ications� the c�ntractor must be bonded� and thereforea he w*ill not receive payment until the job is cione and satisfactorily, Air, A4cAfee asked if the ccntractor has rlot been paid� what happens te the unpair' balance. Does he pay interest on the unp�id balance? It was ans�t7ered that the City does not p�y interest on the balance to the contractor, Mr, Utter, 6084 LJcody Lane was present and asked ak�out bonds in refer- ence to the contractor. The contractor is not Naid� even though he has moriey ceming� until the job is com�leted. Mr, Utter stated that the taxpayers are stuck for the �nterest for t'ris �ast two-year peried, The rlaynr askec� Pf�r, ti�'agner to explain tris to Mr. Utter. Mr. Wagner replied that the Cit,y is pushing the contractors to �et repairs � made and �obs completed, In fact� a r.eu� list of repa,irs i_s row being sub��tted to them. fIe expla�ned that an assessment can be held up if the cont�ract is rot let early enough to complete the work before October lOth� and the roll cannct be certified until tYie next October lOth. Mr, Utter statec' again that he has been paying fc+r two years� anc� feels that this is unfair. At this pojnt� Nr, Wolke stated that this discussion is le�ding to ccnfusion� and suggested to the Mayor that we �et back to the public he�ring en SW&SS#r36, and that these last tk�o ob,7ectors did �ot have anytPiing to do withii�is hearin�. Councilman Nee asked Nr, Kohlan if there k°ere any rules for assess- ments. Mr. Kohlar_ st�,ted that - Storm Sewer is on an area basis� Sanitar,y Se�ler is front foot� unit or let basis� an� Street is �bout the same. The �maunt of the assessments cannot �xceed the inprove- ment made� or exceed the amount ef benefits received. The Mayor asked that the meeting get tack to the public hearin� on SW &S5�36, Councilman Wolke read the estimated costs relative to this project irom the notices of hearing on improvements. Mr. Brur_sell de�cribed the area afferted, There oras no map at tY:is point. The storm sewer assessment is snread on �n area basis. It was stated that t'r��s assessm�nt has been re-calculated to spread the assessment evenl,y on a lot basis regardless of size ef lot. I��r. Bro�m leit to get the m�pi i�r. Wolk_e stated that he had added the amounts of the estimated costs from the notices of hearing on the irrprovements in- , cluded in this assessment� and he finds less than a 5'% deviation. He stated th�t the City C�uncil has at times refused a bid because they ielt it was toc high, and have taken new bids and have saved the taxpayers mor_ey. On the other hand� they have refused the first bid, and after ore or two bids, the,y have had to take a larger bid than the original one, therefore the taxpayer pays more. This is a difficult thing� ar.d he ieels that the 5% is very close. Zhere was a 4uestion as to whether or nnt ¢i36 anci �,'40 overlap. The answer is "no". Mr, Ratnery Lynd�le Luilders, stated that there are still sevEral things that puzz]e him re�2rding this matter. He feels that it i.s �ore than 5% off� and the fi�ure used in setting up the escrow is �inadequate. He state8 that at the time this project was set u�7� Comstock and Davis� Consulting rn�ineers Froposed that the school property ceuld be served �aith sewer and water by �han�e er alternate r -, �J � ' �i in engineering proposals. He stated that a iigure of �11�000 has come tc light noy�� that was not on the original rol1. Ldas this f'igured in Sewer and water assessaent? He asked if there are additi�nal leaies against other properties� or can this be done? Could the school pronerties, and adjacent properties be assessed? I�ayor Greig stated "no"y an� gave an exa�ple. He stated that many times other peeple benEfit from laterals running across their pronerty� but they are not assessed for them. Mr. Brursell stated that the school pro�erty was p�rt of a di-ferent Project (�38)� that the rate of Fro�ect �38 is higher� ar.d therefore if this had beer� ir_cluded with �?36� L,yndale Builders' share wovld have been higher. Mr, Uorfman� attorney for L,yndale Et;ilders� stated that if the adjoining school property receives benefit� they should legally share� based on the benefit received. He directed this statement to Const�lting Engineer Com,stock� and asked that he comn:ent on this. Mr, Comstock stated that as far as actual benefit was concernec?, the schocl pro�erty �,�as inclnded in ¢�38� and the original prelin�inary hearing was for �36. The estin,ated $',11�000 uras for a deeper line lying east of Lyndale Euilders and Parkview �eks. There is noia a revised assessment which is before the Council tonight f'or their ccnsid- eration, NIr. P�atner asked if it k�as reduced. P4r. Kohlan stated tnat the clerk re-calculated, and based on this re-calculation on the revised figures; this is approximately $100.00 less per lot, which is very close to the estimate. Mr. Wolke asked if this $11,698.34 is a portion of the $113,851.79. Answer -"yes, this is included in the new revised roll". Mr. Ratner asked for a figure per 1ot, and he was told for a 75 foot lot it would be $869.07. Mr. N. Anderson, East River Road, asked about the assessment on a lot basis, according to the 1ot size, Mr. Wplke stated that this has been assessed on a footage basis. Mr. Kohlan stated that this storm sewer improvemenC was necessitated because of the feasiMlity for street im- provements. There was discussion on the drainage in this area in regard to the assessment against the property and the benefit received froui the storm sewer. Mr. Anderson sCated that he is assessed on a unit basis, and is paying 5 times as much as those that are receiving the most benefit. Mr. Wolke asked Mr, Comstock whether this storm sewer drainage is connected with East River Road. Mr. Comstock replied that it collects in catch basins, and that storm sewer is to drain streets, basically, and not to drain adjoining properties. Motion by Wolke to close the hearing. Seconded by Nee. Upon a voice, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - ASSESSMENT ROLL - SS9�40: Councilman Nee moved that this hearing be continued, and the property owners notified, Secanded by .Tohanson. Upon a voice vote, there being rw nays, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Wentworth stated that he would like some information on his assessment, and he was told to discuss this with Mr, Wagner, the City Manager, at his convenience. He staCed that his property was building property, but that he had been re£used building permits. PUBLIC HEARING - ASSESSMENT ROLL - ST. 1959-1: Mr. DeLaMartre - 5821 Sth Street N. E. was present, and stated that he had been unable to attend the previous meeting, and he would like to clarify some of the questions in his mind on this assessment. Mr. Brunsell explained that there were three alternatives that could be considered. (1) Assessment as made up (2) Assessment if So. side of 58th Avenue is included at same rate, and (3) Assessment if So. side of 57i (58th) Avenue pays one-fourth of cost. Mr. Robert C. Cibuzar 5830 N. E. 6th Street, was present and stated that because of the access situation he felt that proposal �k3 should be approved. Mr. Oreskovich, 5831 4th Street N. E. stated that he felt that all property should be assessed fu11y, and that the commercial property should pay full price. Councilman Nee suggested that the Council approve this Proposal �i3. There was a discussion as to corners, and why should the sputh side get off cheaper. There was a question on maintenance and repair payments, and it was stated that this is from General Funds. Then, Mr. McAfee, stated that if this proposal can be approved in this area, why can't something similar 6e approved for their area (Hillcrest Drive). It was stated that this situation was a much different situation than they have. Mr. Rohlan stated that lots on south side have frontage on 57Lh. They are to pay side and frontage, and 1/4 in back. Mr. Wagner stated that 23 lots wi11 now be assessed $54.50, which had not been assessed before, and the 75 foot lots would now be �� 2 �1l�7.75 instaad oi 3$19b.5d. The qnestion was asked jahether the people on the south side would be notified, Thea* were inclnded in the hearing notiee as the abutting area� so thereiore' will. n�t be notified further, Mr. L.A. Hedlundy 930 Haclrniann Avemae was present and stated that he did not feel that he should be assessed for a street that was put in ior the convenienae of a honsing project. Aa felt that the building contractor should pay ior the street. It was stated that the street would have been put in anyway� and that a street is not used only by one irsdividual� everyone uses them. Mro C. M. Kam� 120 Talmad�e Way was present� and said that in the sprixtg o�' 1959 the anproximate price quoted him ior street improvement was 9�2.75 per foot, and now the assessment is 4�1t.18 per foot. He ielt that this increasP was unfair. Mr. Brransell si,ated that he was not being assessed for at present prices� ' ancl ttie assessm+�nt i� basecl on ihe I�IcCrassan c�ntract. The Council explained that iS the �oiuzcil dec5.ded to change the street standards for a better street betweetl the time of �+etition and the actual construction� this could be doney to assure the people of a better si.reet, Therefore9 in this situation� they decided upon the street si.andard cesting �1t,]8, following the new plans and specifi_cations rather than the street specifications during the time the petition was received, This would mean they would be getting a 20 year street� instead of a 5 year streety as far as qnalit,y is concerned, Mr. Kam stated that he £elt that the people should ha•re been notified oi this change, The CounciZ concurred in this. Mr. Kohlan eapla�.ned that aft,er petitions are receivedy ;he public hearing on improvements� the engineering plans and specific�tions and estima*�.ed costs are considered� Then selferal street petitions may be lumped together to encourage better bids. The call ;'or bids is madej then the contract is awarded' and when the work is completed� the assessment is znade allocat�ng the cost to the property owners. 'Phe question was asked wh,y some are assessed on i'oot basis5 and otners on unit basis. It was stated that sornr streets have situations wher� it would not be feasible to liunp these ����ther in one bid� and these are handled separateZy ta insnre a more exact cust for all concerned. Mr. McAfee� Hillcrest Drive� asked how the total cost of the pra�ect was ^plii, up. Mr. Greenwood� 61 Talmadge Way uas present and asked �if there is an� inspection while the contractors are puti,ing in streets� and that he had w�ter and mud on his lot because of this strert surfacing improvement, He was told that inspectiaras �re znade. This is an undedicated road, There was discussion on this� referring to t,he map for 1cr,ation etco The City Manager Will see what can be done about an apron across this undedicated road. Mr. Utter� Wond�; Lane� aGked if � the City Engineering Department could check his si,reet and repair where there is a need fc�r i+� alsa he htid pe+.i�-ioneci £or storm set,*ery but did not Vrish to be a getitioner £or this proposed improvement any lcnger as his taxes are high noyr� and would nat fee_l that he wou7.d like to take on any more exnense nou. There was a disrussion again on lot sizes and shapes (pie-shaped lots) in the Hillcrest Drive a�^ea3 �nd Mr, McAiee stwted that h� thauaht the a.ssessments should be divided evenly among the 73 property owners9 and not on z iront foot basis. Mr. Brunsell stated th.at it i� assessed e�n a front foat basis. Mr, McA£ee asked again why they cou3d raot be assessed evenl�. Councilman Nee stated that any decision on method may be considered arbitrar}r. Mr. Kohlan e�ilained the method of a�sessing these lots it� t�his areaa and alsa the benefit each property owner receives from street sUrfacing i.n fron� of his propertyr as far as resa.le - market value of their praperty, Mr� Mcdfee reFaeateci that he wish�d to see this a�sessment divided equall,y among the property owners in his area. Mr. Wolke stated that £ront £ootage assessment is more equitable� and that the pie-shaged lots are taken into consideration. Mr. Utter sUated that the traffic is heavier irr £ront of his home than some of the other homes i.n his area, and st�ill he had to pay as much or more assessments. Mr„ Wolke ex- plai_ned that y�u ca_nr:ot base an assessment on streets on the amount oi traffic that passes each home, The basis for �ssessments for years has been on a front £oot basi.sa The Gity Manager will check into the street condition on Woody Lane. Motion by Johanson to �lcse t.he he�aringo 5econded b� Nee. Upon a voice vote� there being no nays� the matior� cari•9.ed unanimousl,y. RESpLUTION NG. 172 ;.°61 CUNFIFMTNG ASSESSMENT ROLL - SW & SS #3G: Moti.e�n b,y Johanson tc� adopt tYae resolixtion as amended, the assessment fpr storm sewer � to be spread even]y on a lot basis regardless of size. Seconded L�t Wolke. IIpon a voice vete� there bein� no nays� the motion carried unanimously. RESOI,UTION C�NFIRMiidG ASSESSMENT ROLL o SS{��0: Moi,�on by Nee to tahle this resolution to a later date. Seconded by ?dolkao r*�nn z=. �raice vote, there being no naysy the motian carried unanimously. 33 RESOLUTSON N0. 173-1961 COiVFIRMING ASSESSMEiuT ROLL - S`?'. I95y-l: Motion by Nee to adopt the above resolution as amencieda the souih side of 572 Avenue pa,ying 1�l1 of cost. Seconded by Wolke. Upon a voice vc�te' thex•e being no nayss the motion carried unanimousl,y. ADJOURNI�tti T: There being no further business� the Ma,yor declax�ed the me�ting adjourned, � P.e �eeti'ully submitted: %�:,�.-�:� �r ����'-�i ���r��s�,�_��--=— Acting Secretary to the Council � t SPECIAL COiINCIZ MEETTIUG - OCTOBER 11� 1961 �� MAYOR - T. E, Greig A special meeting of the City Council was called to arder k�,y Acting_ i'�Iayor Wol?ce at 8:07 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members PrFSent: Members Absent: Nee? Johanson� Wolke Greig� Sheridan (arrived at 10:15 P,I�.) PiIBLIC HEARI1vG - ASSESSMEIVT ROLL - ST. 1g60-1&2: Acting Mayor described the area of this improvemert� also stated the estimated costs and actual costs of same, Mr. Pa,l.erma� 59�9 Hack�nann Avenue was preseni and asked questions pertaining to Haclrnian�� which were the same as he had a�ked at the hearing on October 3' 1961. He asked if the $1'650.00 allowad by the City far Haclrm�,nn had been subtracted when computing the rate per fooi� on this improvement. He was told that it had� and that the rate was �ly.18 per £ror_t ia�i„ He alsa stated ag�in that the petition atated the asse�sment was payab]e on a 1Q year basis= and asked xhy it 3s set up for 5 years. Mr. Kohlan stated that ihe petition read not to exceed 10 years� and the City feels that it is more feasible tp spread it on a 5 year basis for both the City and the taxpayers� because of the interesi, invnlved� Mr. Palermo stated that he was embarrassed because cf the fact that he had tvld the Aeople in the area that the rate of cost xould be about .�2,25 -$2+50 and spread on a 1D year basis� and now the rate is $lG.18 pex•foota and on a 5 year taasis, Mr< Brunsell got the petition� and it did conform to Mr. Palermots statement. Mr. Kohla,n stated that he does not e�etly lmow how the �2,K17 rate was arrived at' but thai on a unit basis� both sides of the streei,} the rate was v�s.?Os and that perhaps this had been divided in half to arrive at �2.50. Mr. Comstock� Consulting Eng7neer expla3ned that there were two bids taken on this improvemenL� and the r,ontract was awarded� but at thal tia�e 66th and Ablea narth oE Miss9ssipp3 was not included. 612 Way and Brookv-i.ew were deleted £rom the co�traata and at the request of Erco� Inc,a Able and 66th saere added to the contract by change order. Mr, Comstnck referred �o a letter ot Sentember 20� i96o, where the figures indicated tYiat the rate per foot would be �3.86. AcLing Mayor Wolke suggested that due to the error pertaining to Haclaiaru�� and the �2.5U rate chargea that the Council go along with the 4�3.$5 per foot £igure. Motion by Johanson to increase the Gity_share to �2�OLG6.Opa and use the �3.68 per foot rate for Haclanann. Seconded by Nee„ Upon a vo9.ce vote� there being no nays� the motion carried nnanimOL7S1�• � Mr. Christie, 5930 Haclm�ann Avenue, asked if the contxactor must complete the work by a certain completion date, and if not is there a penalty. Mr. Wolke stated that they do have a completion date, but that a contracYor cannot be pushed on this, as they would take this into consideration when making their bid and would increase it. Mx. ComsCOCk stated that it is vezy difficult to make a close estimate during the preliminary stages of improvement, also that interest is a factor. Mr. Mann stated that there is difficulty with the interest, being that it was late in the fall, the final price could not he determined, and therefore, a long period of inCerest resulted.