MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA MARCH 24, 2014

Loading....

Loading....

Loading....

Loading....

Loading....

Full text

(1)

MARCH 24, 2014

Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a special meeting of the City Council of Little Canada, Minnesota was convened on the 24th day of March, 2014 in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City.

Acting Mayor Rick Montour called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and the following members of the City Council were present at roll call: CITY COUNCIL: Acting Mayor Mr. Rick Montour Council Member Ms. Shelly Boss Council Member Mr. John Keis

Council Member Mr. Michael McGraw ABSENT: Mayor Mr. Bill Blesener

ALSO PRESENT: City Administrator Mr. Joel R. Hanson City Engineer Mr. Lee Elfering

City Clerk Ms. Kathy Glanzer

IMPROVEMENT Acting Mayor Montour opened the Public Hearing to consider the HEARING- improvement of Schletty Drive (south of Little Canada Road) consisting IMP. NO. of full reconstruction including concrete curb and gutter, an upgraded 2014-02 storm sewer system, and the addition of watermain and street lighting. SCHLETTY Montour noted that the neighborhood was called in for an improvement DRIVE hearing earlier this year, and the improvement was denied. Since that time

the City Engineer put together various assessment options for the

improvement and a neighborhood meeting was held to review the options. Additionally, a survey was compiled on whether or not to reconsider the improvement based on the revised assessment. It was noted that at the neighborhood meeting, property owners expressed an interest in decorative street lighting, which has now been added to the proposed improvement.

The City Engineer presented a summary of the improvements which include a fully reconstructed street to a 28-foot wide urban section with all new barrier concrete curb and gutter. Watermain will also be installed and those properties without current service will receive a water service to the property line. Decorative street lighting would be installed. The Engineer noted that the estimate is for three decorative street lights, but some of the

(2)

property owners have expressed an interest in four lights, the fourth being installed at the intersection of Little Canada Road and Schletty. The cost of an additional light is estimated at $2,800.

With regard to the proposed assessments, the Engineer noted that the proposal would be to assess $5,128.21 per lot for street without an assessment for replacement of the curb and gutter. Watermain is estimated to be assessed at $6,107.96 per lot and would be based on the premise that all properties are not currently served with water. The City would pay the cost associated with the properties that are currently served by City Water based on the fact that those connected to watermain on Little Canada Road probably paid a portion of water main costs when those properties were in initially hooked up. The cost of decorative street lighting would be assessed at 100% of the cost to the 18 properties, and the assessment amount would be dependent on the number of street lights that are installed.

The City Engineer then reviewed assessment payment methods which provide for payment (either in full or part) with no interest within the first 30 days after the assessment is adopted, or allowing the assessment to be certified against property taxes for collection over a 10 year period at an interest rate of 4.75%. The Engineer noted that after certification assessments can be paid off early to the County at any time. He

suggested, however, that payments should be made prior to November 15th in the given year or the County will add the next year’s interest to the balance.

The Engineer then reviewed the proposed assessment roll.

One property owner asked if a property sells if existing wells could be maintained, or the new property owners would be required to connect to City water. The City Administrator replied that the City does not require property owners to connect to City water if it is available. He was not sure if mortgage lenders would have such a requirement.

Montour asked if the City lots along Schletty Drive were buildable. The City Engineer replied that they were not.

One property owner asked the cost of connecting to City water. The Engineer reported that were would be the cost of having a water line run from the property line into the house. The Engineer noted once a property connects to City water, a well could be maintained for watering yards or for sprinkler systems, but would have to be separate from potable use.

(3)

A property owner asked how long the reconstruction project would take. The Engineer reported that once the contractor begins work, the project would take 1 ½ to 2 months. He indicated that the City does not dictate the start date in bid specifications, so the contractor could start as early as mid-May or as late as mid-July. However, once the contractor begins, he/she must make continual progress on the project. If a bid is awarded, the project would be completed in 2014, with the final lift of asphalt installed in 2015. The Engineer also noted that once bids are received, if they are substantially over estimate (15% or more), the Council would likely reject the bids and rebid the project for 2015 construction.

With regard to the cost of bringing a water service into a home, the City Engineer estimated the cost at $2,000 to $5,000 depending on whether the service is brought to the back or front of the house. The City

Administrator estimated the cost of City permits and fees at $500 to $600. The Engineer reported that most licensed plumbers can do this work. One property owner asked if the homeowner could do the work. The City Administrator did not think so, but reported that he would check the City Code in this regard, noting the need to work around gas lines, etc.

One property owner asked about the style of the decorative lights. The City Engineer indicated that the style proposed is an acorn or lantern style similar to what has been used in other areas of the City. The

Administrator indicated that there were other options that could be considered. The property owner felt it may be better to utilize the style that has been used on other areas of the City. One property owner indicated his desire to have the cobra-head street light at the corner of Little Canada Road and Schletty Drive removed as it shines into his bedroom window. This would be the fourth light discussed. The City Administrator stated that the City would have to check with Xcel Energy to determine what additional charges they may impose for removal of a street light.

Montour noted the results of the neighborhood survey was that 4 property owners supported a delay of the improvement, 10 supported

reconsideration of the improvement, and 4 did not respond. One property owner felt the option to “reconsider the improvement” did not necessarily indicate a support for moving forward at this time, and felt the Council’s decision whether or not to order the improvement should not be based on that survey question. The property owner felt the question was poorly written. The City Administrator indicated that the survey question was to serve as an indication as to whether or not there was support to call for another improvement hearing. Montour noted that this evening is that improvement hearing, and also noted that the improvement scope was modified to include decorative street lighting. Montour also noted that if

(4)

the project is not ordered this evening and is delayed, the assessment as proposed may or may not be the same in future considerations of the improvement. Montour stated that he felt the assessment proposed at this time is an equitable offer on the part of the City. He also noted that at the most recent neighborhood meeting, there was support for moving forward with the project.

One property owner clarified the City’s position that watermain would be installed along Schletty Drive if there is any major work done to the road. Montour replied that that was the policy of the current Council, and he saw no reason why a future Council would deviate from that policy. Keis indicated that he would not change his mind on that issue if the project were delayed for a few years.

There was no one present from the general public wishing to comment further on this matter.

Upon motion by Keis, seconded by Boss, the public hearing was closed. McGraw introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:

RESOLUTION NO. 2014-3-54 – ORDERING IMPROVEMENT NO. 2014-12, SCHLETTY DRIVE (SOUTH OF LITTLE CANADA ROAD) CONSISTING OF FULL RECONSTRUCTION INCLUDING

CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND AN UPGRADED STORM SEWER SYSTEM AND THE ADDITION OF WATERMAIN AND STREET LIGHTING AS WELL AS ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Keis.

Ayes (4).

Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted.

Montour noted that the next step will be to go out for bids. When the bids come back, the Council will reviewed whether or not they are substantially different than the estimate, and based on that either award or reject the bids.

The Administrator noted that due to the timing to get to bid with this project, the plans and specifications are complete. He recommended that the council authorize advertisement for bids at this time.

(5)

Montour introduced the following resolution and moved adoption:

RESOLUTION NO. 2014-3-55 - APPROVING PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. 2014-2, SCHLETTY DRIVE (SOUTH OF LITTLE CANADA ROAD

ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m.

______________________________ Rick Montour, Acting Mayor

Attest: ________________________________ Joel Hanson, City Administrator

Figure

Updating...

References

Updating...

Related subjects :