Loading...
11/01/1965 - 00021811252 THE MINUTES OI' THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 1965 The regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Nee at 8;01 P.M. ROLL CALL Members Present: Nee, Kirkham, Wright, Thompson, Sheridan Members Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES, REGULAR COUNCIL MCETING - OCTOBER 18, 1965: � Motion by Kirkham to adopt the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 18, 1965 as submitted, Seconded by Wright. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING REZONING R-1 TO CR-1 PORTION OUTLOT 1, MELODY MANOR 4TH ADDITION: The City Manager read the Notice of Hearing. The Mayor explained the purpose of the rezoning for the benefrt of the visitors to the Council Meeting. Councilman Wright asked whether Mr. Hafner presented plans for the land use of the remainder of Outlot 1. The City Manager stated that Mr. Hafner has done so, and his plans are presently being considered by the Planning Commission, Mayor Nee declared the Hearing closed. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE REZONING R-1 TO CR-1 PORTION OUTLOT 1, MELODY MANOR 4TH ADDITION: Motion by Sheridan to adopt, upon first reading, Lhe Ordinance rezoning ' R-1,to CR-1 portion of Outlot 1 in Melody Manor 4th Addition. Seconded by Kirkham. Upon a roll ca11 vote, all voting aye, the motion carried. LOT SPLIT - L.S ik65-13 OIITLOT 1, MELODY MANOA 4TH ADDITION: Councilman Sheridan asked whether the North Suburban Hospital District has given a 30 foot easement to the City for construction of the west side of the street between Outloe 1 and the Unity Hospital porperty. The City Engineer answeved that the N.S.H.D. has not done so, but that Mr. Johanson, a boa�d member of the N.S.H.D., has stated that the Hos- pital District will do so. Councilman Wright inquired whethe: any land use in the CR-1 zone does not require Building Board approval� The City Manager answered, "No" and stated that all land use in the CR-1 zone will be commercial use in con�unction with medical facilities and, as such, will require approval of plans by �he Building Board. Motion by Sheridan to grant tot Split �k65-13. Seconded by Wright. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING FAANCHISE ORDINANC� - AMERTCAN OIL COMPANY: The City Manager read the Notice of Hearing and explained that it is the purpose of this ordinance to permit the American Oil Company to relocate , the pipeline from the T.H. �k47 righ�of-way. He stated that this is an urgent matter in order that construction of the storm sewer and highway can proceed Mayor Nee asked whether it is correct that there will be no benefit to the City of Fridley directly from the construction of this pipeline. The City Manager answered that this is correct, and it is the purpose of the pipeline merely to transport fuel through the City of Fridley. Mayor Nee asked the City Attorney whether it is his opinion that it is appropriate to grant a franchise for this purpose. The City Attorney answered, "Yes". Mayor Nee asked the City Attorney whether it is re- quired to grant a franchise in order to accomplish the change in pipeline location. The City Attorney stated that in his opinion the charter 1 t �^ �� � _ � allows the City to grant a franchise for this purpose. The City Elttorney stated that the charter is rather broad on L-his question, and actually the charter grovides the City the right to grant franchises for utilities consumed in the City rather than to transport fuel through the City. Mr. Peter Coggeshall, representative of American Oi1 Company, was pres°izt at the Council Meeting. The Mayor asked Mr. Coggeshall whether the American Oil Company has a vested interest in the land at the present location of the pipeline such that the Minnesota Highway Department cannot take the land. Mr. Coggeshall answered that the Minnesota I3ighway Department � can condemn the land in which the pipeline lies even though the American Oil Company has made prior use of the land. Councilman Wright asked Mr. Coggeshall from whom the American Oil Company obtained the easement. Mr Coggeshall answered that Standard Oil Company, predecessors of American Oi1 Company, ohtained the easement from the Nelson farm owners of the praperty in earlier years. Charles Root, representative of Arvid Carlson atd Sons, was present at the Council Meeting, and stated that Carlson and Sons owns property along T.H, y�47 where it is proposed to relocate the American Oi1 Company pipeline Mr. Root stated that Arvid Carlson purchased this land sub�ect to the easement of the Standard Oil Company, the predecessor of the American Oil Company. He stated that it is the position of Arvid Carlson that theCity does not have the right to grant a franchise to the American Oil Company to locate the pi»eline on the public easement. Mr, Root stated that Arvid Carlson and Sons dedicated the easement to the City for public use, and, he stated, he does not believe either the City Charter or State Statutes give the City the right to grant a franchise foz the purpose of laying a private pipeline upon the easement. Mr. Root stated that Arvid Carlson and Sons ob�ect to the location of the pipeline upon the public easement which they dedicated to the City, and stated that he believes Mr. Carlson can stop the City from doing so I3e stated that the American Oil Company pipeline is a private transmission line not a public utility and there is no public use involved in the use of the pipeline Mr. Root � stated that he does not believe that the City can provide a private party the use of a public easement, Mr. Root stated that he believes it is dangerous to have an 8" gasoline line near a gas main in the public street. He stated that he believes it would be better if this gasoline line is .s�located on the rear of his property away from the utility services in the public street. He stated that if sewer or water utilities need repairs, the plumber might inad- vertently break the gasoline line and the resulting release of fuel �,nuid cause a hazardous condition which might result in fire or explosion, dangerous to that part of the City. Councilman Wright asked NIr. Root whether he is contending that the State already paid American Oil Company to remove from their easement, Mr. Root stated that part of the land of Carlson and Sons was condemned, that they received payment for that land included in the highway right-of-way, and that now the State of Minnesota is in the process of negotiation with the American Oi1 Company for the xelocation of the pipeline. Mayor Nee stated that he believes the point of contention is that the pipeline.does not provide a service directly to the people of the City of Fridley, and since it does not do so, the City does not have the right to grant a franchise to the American Oil Company for construction of the pipeline, Mayor Nee asked the City Attorney what information he has concerning the contention of Mr. Root. The City Attorney stated that he is not prepared ' to enter into an argument with Mr. Root or his attorney on th�s question He stated that he didn't know this problem existed or that there would be opposition to granting a franchise to the American Oi1 Company He stated that it is the purpose of this hearing to obtain knowledge of these ob�ections. The City Attorney stated that he believes the location of �he pipeline would be an incidental use of the public easement The City Attorney suggested that the attorneys of the American Oil Company be given time to find if they can support the contention that they are entitled to, or can be allowed, the use of the public easement without the property owners consent. Mr. Sorenson, attorney for Arvid Carlson and Sons, was present at the Council Meeting and stated'that case 1aw in recent years demonstrates that the City caiinut use public property for private purposes. He stated that two of these cases involved the City of Northfield in 1958 and the Village of Savage in 1960, `�54 C O � U � s� � � G 0 u v u 0 w m p v �+ 0 w N � v m � � a� � m v A v ti � 0 � m C 0 .a „ � � � a� � m an m � v .G � m � > v �+ � m A � � � . m a x � � � v b p v u m ro .+ +� m p, � o .c y on t� � m .c N o v cn .c �, ;� o N x w � z H ' �: 1,:. � � x u � 3 � � c� � 'c u m ro � � 0 s� a� b C m C 0 .� +� v � rr � ro m v � m F u � U � N m m a� �. 0 � v E 'i � � � E 0 c� ti .� 0 � m u .,� u m � � > .� � 0 +� � .� U � � 0 0 m .c x� b m x � m d �a E � r+ m � m v .c .� m u � no 0 0o u U ,4 v s� m � ❑ m NSr. Sorenson stated that the American Oil Company is not a public utility and would not admit to being a public utility. He stated that the American Oil Company does not have the right of eminent domain and cannot condemn utility � easements as public utilities may do with the right of eminent domain. Mr. Sorenson stated that he believes where a private owner ob�ects to the use of the public easement for private purposes that the private property owner�s rights will prevail. Mr. Sorenson stated that he believes a private owner can make some arrangement with the American Oil Company to allow for the location of � the pipeline upon the property of the private owner. Mr. Sorenson stated that hebelieves the City should not grant a franchise to the American Oil Company. Councilman Taright asked Mr. Coggeshall whether it is his belief that the , Minnesota Highway Department would pay, for the easement of the American Oil Company, only the amount of the cost to relocate the pipeline and not the damages incurred by such relocation. Mr. Coggeshall answered that he believes that is correct. Mr. Coggeshall stated that the utilities section of the Minnesota Highway Department is negotiating with the American Oil Company for the relocation of the pipeline. Mr. Sorenson stated that he does not believe that the fact that the Minnesota Highway Department Utilities Section is negotiating with the American Oil Company makes the American Oil Company a utility. He stated that he believes the American Oil Company would declare that it is not a public utility. Councilman Wright asked whether the American Oil Company is governed by the Railroad and Warehouse Commission or by any of the other public utility commissions. Mr. Sorenson stated that this is not correct. Mayor Nee asked Mr. Coggeshall whether he would care to camnent on the statements made by Mr. Sorenson. Mr. Coggeshall answered that he is not an attorney and has Ueen directed by the American Oil Company not to fight for the3location of the pipeline upon the public easement, but'his purpose in comtng to the Council Meeting was merely to answex any questions involving engineering problems which might arise due to relocation of the pipeline. Mr. Root asked the City Engineer whether he discussed the location of the American Oil Company pipeline with the Minneapolis Gas Company. The City Engineer answered, "Yes", and stated that when he talked to the representative of the Minneapolis Gas Company he was informed that they have no ob�ection to the relocation of the American Oil Company pipeline in the same street as , a gas main. Mr. Root stated that he talked to the Minneapolis Gas Company, and that they are opposed to the relocation of the American Oil Company pipeline in the public easement. He stated that the Minneapolis Gas Company believes there is a danger of mixing gas and gasoline, and that repairs to plumbing in the street might result in a break of the gasoline line and the gas main which would create a dangerous condition. Mr. Root stated that he believes the location of the pipeline in the City street wi11 decrease the value of the property because of the d angerous condition thereby created Mr. Root stated thathe believes it would be better if the American Oil Company pipeline were located on the back of the property of Arvid Carlson and sons. Mayor Nee stated that he agreed that a property owner was entitled to compensation for a private pipeline crossing property in which he has an interest. Councilman Wright stated that the City wi11 do what is appro- priate and require the American Oil Company to work out a procedure with the fee owner before locating the pipeline in the street. Councilman Sheridan stated that he believes it is evident that the City does not have the right to grant a franchise to a private firm not a public utility, and, therefore, the American Oi1 Company must cross private easements. Mayor Nee stated that the City has already given the American Oil Company permission to proceed with the relocation of the pipeline. Mr. Coggeshall stated that the American Oi1 Company stopped proceedings to relocate the pipeline when they were informed by Mr. Root of the ob�ection of Arvid Carlson and Sons to the relocation. Mr. Coggeshall stated that if the City of Fridley would grant a franchise to the American Oil Company, the American Oil Company would not hold up the construction of the highway and stoxm sewer, Mayor Nee stated that the ob�ection raised by Arvid Carlson and Sons may require the State to condemn the land of the American Oil Company and would hold u construction of the hi hwa u'�y p g y.< Mr.Coggeshall stated that he believes the American Oi1 Company would need at least to the end of the month of November to research the question and find a possible solution, Mr. Coggeshall stated that as far as the safety argument is concerned, the pipeline is designed to the standards of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and he stated that the damage to the pipeline by possible plumbing construction would be the same whether the pipeline were located in the back of Mr. Carlsen's property or in the City street. Mr. Coggeshall stated, further, that the danger is no greater because of the fuel in the American Oil pipeline than it is for natural gas. ' � � � 255 Motion by Kirkham to continue the hearing on the question of granting a franchise to the American Oil Company to the regular Council Meeting of ➢ec�aber 6, 1965. Seconded hy Thompson, IIpon a vo-7ce vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. CHANGE DRDER ikl - SW&SS�k73A AND 55��73; Motion by Sheri�lan to approve Change Order -0�1 for Pro�ect SW&SS�E73A and SSr'k73. Seconded by Wright. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. CHANGE ORDER �kl - SW4�70; Councilman Wright stated that he laelieves there is every reason to move with haste to effect this construction. Motion by Wright to approve Changz Order �fl for Sewer and Water Pro�ect ��'70. Seconded by Thompson, Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. SIGN PERMTT - HOWARD JOHNSON REfiTAIJRANT: Sheldon Mortenson was present at the Council Meeting and showed a picture of the proposed sign Yo the Council. Councilman Tdright asked Mr Mortenson whether the sign will be illuminated. Mr. Mortenson answered, "Yes." Councilman Wright asked whether the sign will have a flashing illumination Mr. Mortenson answered, "No." Councilmaa Sheridan asked T4r. Mortenson whether Howard Johnson��s own this property at the present time. Mr Mortenson stated that he is required by Howard Johnson Restaurants to obtain a sign permit and present them with a copy in order to fulfill part of the contract Councilman Wright asked Mr. Mortenson what the setback of the restaurant will be from the road. h4r. Mortenson answered that the sign will be set back 180 feet south of 53rd Avenue close to T.H. �'k65 but the sign will not hang over L-he right-of- way of T.H. �k65. He stated that the sign will definitely be located in the parking lot of the restaurant. Motion by Wright to grant the request of Gil-Mor Incorporated for a sign permit to build a Howard Johnson sign upon the property at 5275 Central Avenue Northeast. Seconded by Sheridan, Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. i6192-1965 RECEIVING THE PRELIMINARY ST. 1966-1: Counzilman Sheridan asked whether there was any urgency for the passage of this Resolution. The City Engineer stated that he needs time to survey property before making the final design of the Street Improvement Pro�ect. He stated that it will be necessary to begin the surveys before winter weather closes in. Councilman Sheridan asked the Finance Director wnether it would be possible to complete the prelimuzary assessment ro11 by Novemher 15th. The Finance Director answered that notices to the property ownexs have already been addressed and are ready for mailing, and that he believes it would be possible to complete the preliminary assessment roll by November 15th. Motion by Sheridan to November 15, 1965 for Seconded by Thompson. carried unanimously. adopt Resolution 192-1965 and set the date of the public Hearing on Street projecL St, 1966-1 Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion RESOLUTION ik193-1965 RECEIVING THE PRELIMINARY REPORT AND CALLING A PUELIC HEARING ON THE MATTER OF THE CONSTRIICTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEPIENTS - MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ST. 1966-2; Motion by Wright to adopt Resolution i6193-1965 and set the date of November 15, 1965 for the hearing. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. T.H. �k65 CROSSOVER AT 63RD AVENUE NORTHEAST; Councilman Sheridan stated that in regard to the hearing to be held for Street Improvement Pro�ect St. 1966-2, he wished Lo determine that the Minnesota Highway Department will p�•ovide a crossover of T.H. �665 at 61st Avenue Northeast or West Moore Lake Drive. He stated that he did not wish � �� � to see the crossover at 63rd Avenue Northeast removed. He stated that the businessmen on T.H. ik65 Service Road need to have access to T.H. �E65 at 63rd Avenue Northeast. He stated that he believes the business owners have a vested interest in this crossover, since it has been in use for many years. The City Manager stated that he believes it would be possible to use the Highway Department's argument against a crossover at 63rd as the City's argument for retaining the crossover, that the streets on either side of the crossover are not connected to any ma�or through streets, that the street on the west side of the crossover is connected only to the service road at T.II. ;k65, and, therefore, the traffic load at this crossover would not be sufficient to make it necessary to install signals nor would the traffic load be heavy at this intersection. Councilman Wright stated that he believes the businesses along this portion of T.H. �k65 have a legitimate argument and a right to this crossover. He stated that he agrees that the City of Fridley should have a crossover of T.H. �k65 both at 63rd Avenue Northeast and at 61st Avenue Northeast. S�WER, AND STORM SEWER - PROSECT �p' Motion by Sheridan to adopt Resolution 4k194-1965. Seconded by Wright. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. INVESTIGATION OF HOMICIDE AT RED'S CLUB Councilman Sdright stated that the discovery of a homicide in the parking lot of Red`s Club raises a question, because of its use as a tavern. He stated that he does not believe the discovery of the homicide in the parking lot of the tavern necessarily raises any questions concerning the ownership and operation of the tavern or that the tavern played any particular ro11 in this incident, He stated that he does believe the operation of a tavern is by nature conducive to altercations, encounters, disputes and violence. He stated that, for this reason, the tavern was included in the Universi.ty Avenue Urban Renewai Pro�ect, Councilman Thompson stated that he believes this is a pro per concern, and that it would be wise to investigate the operation of the tavern. Council- man Wright stated that he did not wish to imply that the tavern was necessarily poorly operated, or that the owner is in any way involved in this homicide, nor that the tavern contributed to the homicide, however, he stated that he wished to have a thorough investigation of the tavern to ascertain whether the operation has been good. Motion by Wright to request the Administration to present to the Council the record of the-police �a1is, the complaints received concernYng the tavern,the reports con2erned with the investigations of parties involved in any of these complaints, and a report of the operation of Red's Club on this occasion with the view to possible Council action on the license of Red's Club Seconded by Thompson. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. LOOPING UTILITY SERVICES ON CHANNEL ROAD: The City Engineer stated that it would be adviseable to make a connection bet�aeen two dead-end mains on Channel Road and the service road of T.H. ik65 in order to provide a loop for the water service lines to this area, He stated that this is necessary for good fire protection and to maxntain the quality of the water in this part of the main. The City Engineer showed a map of the utility services to the Council and explained what construction would be necessary to complete the loop. The City Engineer stated that one difficulty with the construction of the loop is that the Knights of Columbus wish to make a connection to City water services immediately, and if their connection is made, there is a question whether they could be assessed for construction of the loop, The City�ngineer also stated that it would be necessary to complete construction of the utilities before the strects are improved and it has been proposed to construct this street the following year Mr. Steve Gorecky was present at the Council Meeting representing the Knights of Columbus and he stated that the Knights of Columbus wish to open their building by January 1, 1966 for a New Years Eve party, had printed tickets for the party and engaged a band for playing at that time. He stated that at the tiTe that the Knights of'Columbus building is opened, ' , ' 2 � 7' it w111 be necessary for them to have water and s°war facilities in the building. Mr. Don Haxstad was present at the Council Me2ting also representing the Knights of Columbus and state3 that Bergharst Plumbing and Heating is doing the plumbing construction for the Knights of Columbus building and had obtained a parmit for connection to the City services He stated that the plumber showed plans for the connection to Lester Chesney, Superintendent of the Public Works Department, and had received an okay For the connection bnt this day the Knights of Columbus were info�med that the connection would not be satisfactory, � The City Manager stated that Mr. Chesney had merely okayed the connection to services as being adequate to provide water and sewer services to the building. He st� ed that Mr. Chesney was not considering the constxuction of a loop of the water services at the time he okayed the connection The City Manager stated that if the connection is made, the Knights of Columbus building wi11 receive less benefit from the loc�p, although the building would receive additional fire protection from construction of the loop. Mr. Harstad stated that the Knights of Columbus will need a water connection to the building at this time so the contractor can use the water to compact the soil around the building. He stated that construction should be under way now to avoid problems of frost at a later date Councilman Sheridan stated that if the Knights of Columbus were to connect to the City sewer and water services at this time, he saw no reason why they could not be assessed for construction of the loop at a later date The Finance Director stated that he believes the Knights of Columbus should sign an agreement with the City stating that they would accepL assessments for construction of the water loop at a future date, Councilman Sheridan asked Mr, Gorecky whether he understood the problem. Mr. Gorecky asked how much the assessments would be for construction of the loop. Councilman Sheridan answered that the assessments would be approximately $5 per front foot spread over twenty years and would amount to roughly $1600 or $llOD. Mayor Nee stated that an additional problem to the City without construction of the loop is the low pumper capacity which the Fire Department � would have due to a long connection from the nearest fir� hydrant to the build ing. The City Engineer stated that he feels it is best that the water loop be constructed. He stated that he wished to bring this to the attention oi- the Council so that, if anything were to happen in the future if the loop should not be constructed, the Council would be aware that this was pointed out for the information of the Council. Mr. Harstad asked if the Knights of Golumbus were to waive their right to ob�ect to the assessment iF the connection permit could be granted. Mayor Nee stated that the same question arose concerning the water services for St, William's Church. He stated that there was a question of fire protection and St. Williams agreed to pay these assessments. Mr. Gorecky stated that he does not believe the Knights of Columbus have a choice but would have to pay assessnents for construction of the water loop in order to obtain adequate fire protection. Mayor Nee stated that people on Channel Road would need the additional fire protection as we11 as the Knights of Columbus. He stated that the Administration would draw an agreement which the Knights of Columbus could sign which would provide that the IZnights of Columbus agree to pay assessments for construction to loop the water main Councilman Sheridan stated that the reason this question is raised at this time is that the City might build a service road along T.II. �F65 the following year He stated that, whereas, some of this property is not developed, it is expected � that it would be developed in the near future. Councilman Sheridan asked the Knights of Columbus whether they wished to have construction of the road the follow- ing yeai. Mr Harstad answered that he hopes the City will rough grade the road past the Knights of Columbus building this year, and Uui1d the road the following year. Councilman Sheridan asked Mr, Harstad whether 11e understood that construction would necessarily provide some inconvenience to the Knights of Columbus dus�ng the period of construction Mr. Harstad answered thathe understood that this would be the case. Mr. Gorecky stated that represeritatives of the Knights of Columbus would be willing to sign an agreement with the City to accept assessments for construction of the water loop ST FOR A VARIANCE BY WAIVER OF THE FRONT YARD REQUIREMENT FROM 35 FEET TO ET 7 INCHES TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A I'OYER ON THE FROATT OF A HOME REQUEST BY WIIS.IAM SAXTON, 6801 - 7TH STREET NORTHEAST); Mr. Saxton was present at the Council Meeting and explained his reason for �J� wishing to enclose a foyer on the front of his home, He presented, with his application, a letter from the ad�oining property owner, one 7ohn F. Christie, wherein Mr, Christie stated that he has no ob�ection to granting the variance. Motion by IZirkham to approve the request of William Saxton for a waiver of the front yard requirement from 35�_ to 30�7" to permit construction of a Foyer upon his property at 6801 - 7th Street Northeast. Seconded by Wright. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. ELECTION LAW - POSSISLE VIOLATION: Councilman Wright stated that he wished to call the attention of the Council to the election law that campaign signs are not permitted within 100 feet of a polling place during the 24 hours of the day of the election. He stated that such a sign was presently in existence, that election day would begin within 2z hours and he hoped to see the sign removed before such a violation would occur. Moti�n by Wright that the City Clerk notify the owners of the election sign within 100 feet of the polling place to remove same before the sign is a violation of the law on election day. Seconded by Thompson. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. OVERTIME PAY FOR SALARIED EMPLOYEES DOING DISASTER CLEANUP WORK; Councilman Sheridan stated that the Building Inspector wished to obtain payment for ocertime work done during the disasters in the City of Fridley, He stated that such payment probably could not be made unless the City could be reimbursed for the same from Federal Funds. He asked whether the City Manager could find out whether it uiould he possible to obtain Federal Disaster Punds to make such payment. The City Manager stated that he would have to investigate this question, Mayor Nee asked the City Manager whether he had kept a record of overtime hours spent by salaried employees. The City Manager stated that he had some of the records, but was not sure that all the records were maintained, Motion by Wright to direct the City Manager to apply for additional Pederal reimbursement for overtime work done by City salar�ied employees during the disaster Seconded by Sheridan IIpon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. WATER CONNECTION CHARGE - DAVID SCHMEDEKE; The City Manager stated that he had received a letter from the City Attorney concerning the question of the eonnection chazge for watex sexvices to the property of David Schmedeke and a request to add it to the Council Meeting agenda of November Sth. He stated that he planned to put this item on the agenda at that time and that at the present time he and the City Finance Director have not had adequate time to study the question. Councilman Wright asked whether time would shortly run beyond the statute of limitations fox collection of this debt. The City Attorney answered that the statute of limitatiDns was not involved in the collection of the connection charge but would be involved in the collection of sewer and water use charges. He stated that under the law connection charges constitute liens against the 1and. The City Attorney stated that in researching the law, he sought to find a manner whereby the City Council could compromise this matter for the benefit of the property owner. He stated that one assumption that could be made is the assessment was levied against the property, but that the property owner did not rec�ive notice of the assessment and, therefore, the assessment would not actually have been made. He stated that the property owner had obtained an assessment search of the property when he purchased the same and was nat notified that this connection charge wasputstanding against the property. He stated that when the property owner sold'the property another assessment search was made, and the City Clerk noticed the mistake, namely, that the connection charge against the property wasrmt recorded. The City Attorney stated that there is a question whether, under the law, the City can collect a connection charge when the lot was split and the charge is not fully assessed at that time. The Citgj Attorney stated that he reviewed this question with Charles Howard, and , � ' 259� Charles Howard confirmed that there is a doubt whether the statute applled The City Attorney stated that he did not believe that there was any reason to make a quick decision concerning this connection charge, since the new buyer put this amount in escrow in order to complete the deal for purchase of the property. The City Attorney stated that if the Council did make a compromise settlement with the owner for the connection charge, he did not believe the Council would be setting a precedent for the same, since there would be few similar cases in the City of Fridley He stated that, whereas, someone might contend that a similar case existed in the event that unoccupied land is improved and the property owner does not receive a proper notice of the � connection charge, he does not believe that the cases would be sufficlently similar that the City need be concerned. The City Manager stated that he discussed the question briefly with the Finance Director and felt that the Council would Need more information on the same The Mayor stated that he would like to read the letter of the City Attorney before deciding what action the Council should take. The Council took no action upon this matter. 1"ADJOiIRDTMEN T • There being no further business, Mayor Nee declared the regular Council Meeting of November 1, 1965 adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, , � � a , ,��� ,;������ ��-�e- ��/ ,t,��'�nti , Raymond E. Bade William S. Nee Secretary to the Council Mayor ' SPECIAL COUNCIL MINIITES - NOVEMBER 5, 1965 � The Meeting was called to order by Mayor Nee at 6:05 P M. ROLL CALL Members Present; Nee, Kirkham, Thompson Membeis Absent: Sheridan and Wright CAi�IVASS OF GENERAL ELECTION DF NOVEMBER 2, 1965: Mayor Nee announced that the declaration of results of the canvass of the General Election of November 2, 1965 is the order of business for this meeting. Motion by Thompson, seconded by Kirkham, to accept and approve the following results of the tally as reported in the canvass. Councilman Thompson raised the question whether the results were arrived at legally. Upon a ro11 ca11 vote, those voting aye: Kirkham and Thompson, nays: none, abstaining; Nee, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried. STATEMENT OF CANVASS GENERAL ELECTION 2 November 1965 DECLARATION OF RESULTS THEREOF • In accordance with Section 4.08 of the Charter of the City of Fridley, the City Council declares the results of the 1965 General �lection to be as follows: A. The total number of ballots cast was: 5520 Ward 1- Precinct 1 404 Ward 1- Precinct 2 827 Ward 1- Precinct 3 793 Ward 2- Precinct 1 851 Ward 2- Precinct 2 989 Ward 3- Precinct 1 727 Ward 3- Precinct 2 571 Ward 3- Precinct 3 358 TOTAL: 5520 Z6� B. The vote for each candidate and number of defective and not voted ballots is as follows: W-1 P-1 w-i P-2 W-1 P-3 W-2 P-1 W-2 P-2 W-3 P-1 W-3 P-2 W-3 P-3 TOTAL: W-1 P-1 W-1 P-2 W-1 P-3 W-2 P-1 W-2 P-2 W-3 P-1 W-3 Pa2 W-3 P-3 TOTAL: W-1 P-1 w-i r-z W-1 P-3 W-2 P-1 W-2 P-2 W-3 P-1 W-3 P-2 W-3 P-3 TOTAL: W-1 P-1 W-1 P-2 W-1 P-3 W-2 P-1 W-2 P-2 W-3 P-1 W-3 P-2 W-3 P-3 TOTAL: W-1 P-1 w-i r-2 W-1 P-3 W-2 P-1 W-2 P-2 W-3 P-1 W-3 P-2 W-3 P-3 TOTAL CITY - MAYOR WILLIAM J NEE JACK 0, KIRKHAM WRITE IN 124 272 1 Mrs. Weems 245 575 3 Greig 326 457 1 Gnerre 312 523 318 657 214 503 1 Greig 129 438 138 216 1 Wright 1806 3641 7 NOT VOTED &/OR DEF. 7 4 9 16 14 9 4 3 66 CITY - COUNCILMAN-AT-L_ARGE NOT VOTED GLENN W. THOMPSON DAVID 0 HARRIS WKITE IN &/OR DEF. 127 26$ 1 Holum 8 219 601 7 310 464 1 G. 7ohanson 18 298 531 3D0 675 204 511 145 417 131 221 1 Kurak 1734 3688 3 CITY - CITY CENTER PROJECT NOT VOTED YES NO &/OR DEF. 113 290 1 234 589 4 276 504 13 265 582 4 253 730 6 200 515 12 122 445 4 � 92 261 5 1555 3916 49 YES 108 221 273 259 235 202 i2a 111 1537 �� 97 209 298 236 236 168 106 86 1436 CITY - UNIVERSITY AVENUE PROSECT NOT VOTED NO &/OR DEF. 293 3 603 3 508 12 588 4 745 9 SI6 9 441 2 244 3 3938 45 CITY - RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS PROSECT NOT VOTED NO &/OR DEF. 306 1 614 4 491 4 612 .3 743 l0 550 9 460 5 267 5 4043 41 22 14 12 9 5 95 TOTAI, 404 827 793 851 989 727 571 358 5520 L� � �4�1 404 827 793 851 989 727 571 358 5520 TOTAL 404 827 793 851 989 727 571 358 5520 TOTAL 404 827 793 851 989 727 571 358 5520 TOTAL 404 827 793 851 989 727 571 358 5520 � , '