Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 09/08/1988 - Special Meeting APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HEARING THURS'DAY SEPTEMBER 8, 1988 7 : 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS : Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J . Jullie, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund a PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4 9 ROLL CALL : All members present . 1 . I NTRQPUCT I ON City Manager Jullie reported that notice of the Special Assessment Hearing was published in the August 17, 2988 Eden Prairie News and was mailed to property owners in the Special Assessment Areas . Jullie explained that the purpose of the meeting was to review the recommended Special Assessment Roll as prepared by the Engineering Staff . He Stated that after hearing objections from the public the Council would consider adoption of Resolution No . 88-194 which could certify the assessments to Hennepin County. Jullie explained the various options available for the property owners to pay the assessments, the deferments available, and how the interest rates were applied . Jullie stated that the State Law required that an appeal had to be made in written form prior to the meeting or presented tonight . Peterson explained that a property owner could address the Council tonight without prior written notice . Public Works Director Dietz reported that 10 projects and a list of supplements were on the agenda for review. Dietz explained the information necessary for an appeal . A . Project I . C. 52-909, Watermain, storm sewer, curb and gutter , and bituminous surfacing of Valley View Road vest of Golden Triangle Drive . Dietz reported that a feasibility study was required for the project and the assessments were split between two property owners. He reported that the total project costs were $1120005. 00, the City share was $3, 414 . 00, with a net assessment of $108, 591 . 00 . Dieu stated that the A6sessitiecit Near iJig 2 September 8, 1988 assessment was proposed to be levied over a 20 year period at 8% interest . Pidcock asked Dietz if there was storm sewer on the project . Dietz replied that a catch basin had been installed . No further comments from the audience . MOTION : Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to approve the Assessment Roil for Project I .C. 52-089 . Motion carried unanimously. 2 . Protect I .C. 52-1Q2, Sidewdlk, bikeway, storm sewer, and street improvements on Dell Road and in Hidden Glen 3rd Addition. Dietz reported that the project was a 100% petitioned project, petitioned for by a developer , with no other property owners involved in the project . Dietz stated that a partial assessment for the project had been levied in the Fall of 1987 to cover the costs incurred through July of 1987 . He stated that the project had been in progress for approximately 3 years . Dietz said that the project was still not far enough along to determine the final costs . He stated that his was another partial assessment, which was requested by the developer, with another assessment in the Fall of 1989 for a Final Assessment . Dietz estimated this assessment to represent over 85% of the total costs. Dietz reported the Net Assessment to be $308, 642 . 00 through July 1, 1988 . He stated that the assessment would be levied over a 5 year period at 8% interest . Dietz stated that each single- family unit was being assess at $2, 637 . 96 and each duplex unit was to be assessed one and one-half times that of the single family unit, $3,956 . 24, per the developer 's request . Harris asked Dietz If both halves of the duplex would be assessed one and one-half times the single-family unit. Dietz replied that the 03, 956 . 24 assessment would be divided by two . No further comments from the audience. MOTION : Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Special Assessment Roll for Project I .C. 52--102 . Motion carried unanimously. t r+ Assessment Fearing 3 September 8, 1988 3 . Protect ,1.C 2-104, sanitary sewer , storm sewer, watermain, and streets on Prairie view Drive and St . Andrew Drive . Dietz reported that a feasibility hearing- was held in January of 1987 . He reported the total project costs were $370, 560 . 00, the City share was $7, 257 . 00 for the interconnection of the watermain system to Pleasant Hill Road, leaving a net assessment of $363, 303 . 00 . Dietz stated that the project came in at 15 to 20 percent under the feasibility estimated costs . Dietz said that the streets were assessed at $48 . 92 per front foot and the watermain assessment was assessed at $2, 561 . 74 per lot . Dietz said it was determined that a unit assessment would be best for the sanitary sewer; however, along St . Andrew Drive there was a potential for future development, therefore, a front footage rate of $21 .88 which applied over the entire subdivision along Prairie View Drive would come out to $2, 761 . 53 per unit . Dietz summarized by stated that along St . Andrew Drive for the properties with potential for further development a front foot rate was used for streets and sanitary sewer and for the interior of the project a unit rate for water and sanitary sewer was used . Dietz recommended that the assessment be levied over a 20 year peri-id at 8% interest . Dietz explained that the method of a $1, 000 credit for sanitary sewer had become outdated because of the increasing costs of the newer project . Dietz suggested that the credit be s eliminated and the amount of the assessment for the sanitary sewer and watermain be excluded for 5 years or until the property owner connected to the City sanitary sewer system. He said that for homestead properties the assessment for streets and storm sewer would appear on the 1989 tax statement . Dietz said that the sanitary sewer and water assessment was a fixed amount and would be assessed when the property owner connected or would be part of the 1994 Special Assessment Hearing, whichever came first . Dietz stated that the property owner would have the opportunity to object to the amount of the assessment at the 1994 Special Assessment Hearing or when the property owner connected . Harris asked Dietz if the deferment only applied to original property owners and how would the 2994 amount be handled if the property were sold . Dietz replied that this was not a deferment, but an exclusion and would remain with the property; however , that if the property. were to be sold the lending facility could require the assessment to be deducted from the proceeds of the sale at a the time of closing . Dietz commented that Eden Prairie . was the only city to use this system. Roger Goetze, 7171 Prairie view Drive, asked Dietz if the f property was currently connected or if it was connected l Assessment Hearing 4 yeptember 3, 1988 before 1994 if there would be a charge to the seller . Dietz replied that typically the seller would be responsible for the assessment amount to be paid in full . Goetze stated that the costs of the project were to be 15 to 20% below the original estimate; however, he said the original assessment for his property had been $13, 400 and was now at $12, 000, representing only approximately a 10% reduction, which he did not believe reflected the 15 to 20% reduction for the entire project . Dietz replied that he could not quantify the exact difference related to each phase of the project, but the overall costs of the project were reduced by approximately 17%. Dietz said he did not compute the reduction for each parcel and the reduction would vary percentage wise for each parcel . Goetze asked if all the properties got the benefit of the cost reduction and if it would be possible to get a report on how the reductions were arrived at . Dietz explained how the reductions were calculated . Goetze questioned the $520 trunk fee and if this was included in the assessment . Dietz stated that the trunk fee was a fixed amount. He said that the $520 amount was for the City trunk water system and trunk sewer system. Goetze asked Dietz if the $520 was a trunk cost then why was there an additional charge for trunk costs for both water and sewer when you connect . Dietz explained the three methods the City uses � to collect for the water system. Goetze asked if the $1200 to $1300 charged to connect could be incorporated in s the 20 year plan at 8% interest along with the $520 . Dietz replied that this method had never been done in the past and that the City did not have code provisions to allow for this at the current time . Jullie stated that the City could look into the potential for including the connection charges into the 20 year plan; however , it would involve legal paper work, signing a 100% petition form and waving the assessment right . Goetze stated that he considered his trunk connection cost to be a large amount for an individual single-family homeowner . Dietz asked Goetze if he had made application to connect. Goetze replied no . Dietz stated that he would talk to the City Attorney regarding the legal requirements . Goetze asked if he needed to submit anything in writing tonight and who he should stay in touch with . Dietz replied that Goetze should talk directly to him and that because the trunk connection was not a part of the actual assessment that written appeal was not required . Mike Gust, 7280 Praizie View Drive, was upset with the amount of time City inspectors were on the project . Gust stated that when he had wanted to hook up to the sewer a City inspector came out and told him he could do the work himself as long as it was done per City Code, but when he went to file for the permit lie was told he could not do the installation himself . Gust understood the amounts he had already paid; $375 for water, $280 for sewer, and $525 j f yi t f A�sE�s�uent bearing 5 September 8, 1938 for SAC charges were to be the trunking charges . Gust asked if the ;525 was the original trunking costs . Dietz replied that the SAC amount was passed directly to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission . Gust stated extreme confusion regarding what he was paying for, what he had already paid for , and if he was being charged twice for services . He stated that when he had contacted City Hall to get help, no one was able to explain the $520 invoice . Gust asked. Dietz if everyone in Eden Prairie was being charged $520 for trunking fees . Dietz replied that the $520 was reported in the feasibility study and that the $525 SAC charge was not the same as the $520 trunk fee . Dietz explained the methods used to pay for the water trunk system and how they were collected. Dietz stated that $520 had been the charge for every single- family residential home since 1971 . Gust suggested that a booklet be published regarding the process for sewer and water hook-up. Gust stated that he was still confused and very frustrated about not being able to get answers from City Hall personnel and the charges . Peterson commented that he and the other Council members did not want residents to have communication problems with City personnel . Peterson said that if there was a problem getting to the right person for answers to contact City Manager Jullie and he would see that the proper person f spent the time necessary to clarify the issues for any resident . Pidcock suggested that a booklet be explaining 9g published ex lalnin the charges in language that the lay-person could understand . Dietz replied that the City had a fee schedule consisting of 25 pages and that it would be difficult to publish such a booklet . Pidcock stated that the residents should not have to deal with the confusion ' and frustration. Peterson stated that every project was different, which created the difficulty for creating a booklet . Jullie stated that he would look into developing a sample booklet. Judy Stephen, 7161 Prairie view Drive, had submitted a letter to the Council stating her concern about how the assessment amount compared against the value of her older home . She believed the assessment to be extremely high . Stephen asked why it had not been explained that the assessment amount for sewer and water could be deferred for 5 years . Stephen had understood that the total assessment had to be paid whether you connected or not and so she had connected right away, figuring since she had to pay for it she might as well enjoy it . Stephen said that the costs to connect were overwhelming and now she understands that she could have waited for 5 years . Peterson asked Dietz if the exclusion for the 5 years had been discussed at the feasibility hearing . Dietz replied A�se�,�n►Cr►t Hearing G September '0, 1983 that he did not believe the exclusion was discussed for this project at that time and that the exclusion policy had been developed in the Fall of 1987 . Jullie stated that the City could make the policy retroactive . Peterson suggested that the 5 year exclusion be made available to all property owners for this project . Pidcock stated agreement with Peterson. Anderson believed the 5 year exclusion to be a fair approach since the property owners already had their own water and septic systems and since there seems to be some misunderstanding as to the options available to the property owners . MOTION : Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock that the 5 year exclusion pertain to all the property owners for this project . Dietz asked for clarification o the motion, he understood the Council to say that the amounts in the 1994 column would not be assessed to any property owner , whether they connect tomorrow or in 1989 etc, until 1994 . Dietz stated that the 1994 column amount would then need to be listed as a pending assessment. Bentley asked if the motion would include the property owners that had already connected . Pidcock replied that all the amounts in the 1994 column would be deferred until 1994 and would include those owners which had already connected . Motion carried unanimously. Paul Schee, 7288 Prairie View Drive, stated agreement with Mr . Gust regarding the difficulty in getting answers from City Hall personnel and getting consistent answers . Schee stated that he had been told that the project had come in around $245, 000 and his assessment would be $7, 294 . 73, which was not how the final figures had been presented . Schee stated concern about the lack of City inspectors on the project . Schee believed that the sod installation was not done properly and had talked to City Hall personnel several times, but nothing had been to correct the situation . Schee stated that after approximately one month had lapsed, finally a City Inspector did ccme out to look at the sod and then the next day he received a letter stating that the contractor had fulfilled it 's obligation and that he would be responsible for the sod now . Schee believed that the City of Eden Prairie should do Fetter and that the City Inspectors should have the interest of the residents at heart. Schee stated disappointment in # the information giver, about the assessment and the manner in which the sod issue was handled . 1 I Assessment tearing 7 Saptember 6, 1388 Pidcock asked what the City policy was for overseeing work ,_:untracted out by the City. Dietz replied that it was the Engineering Department ' s responsibility to oversee the work . Dietz said that City Staff had to depend on the residents to tell the City if they were not satisfied with the work done . Dietz stated that he would look into the sod installation and would try to rectify the situation . Bentley suggested that the City policy for overseeing contractors work be discussed at a special Council workshop. Peterson commented that the Council takes the residents comments seriously and that the Council had made a commitment to provide better communication . Peterson stated that he had not received any phone calls regarding a problem with the sod or the City. Inspectors . Peterson s encouraged residents to contact their elected officials . Tom Schramm, 7151 Prairie View Drive, stated that in general the project went well, but that he believed that reseeding did need to be redone because of the drought . Schramm stated that tie had talked with a Realtor and had been told the improvements would only add $3, 000 to $4, 000 to the value of his home and had difficulty justifying the $13, 000 assessment being levied for something that he did not believe to be necessary since they already had wells and septic systems . MOTION : Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Assessment Roll for Project Y . C. 52-104 . Motion carried unanimously. 4 . Project I .C. 52-105, watermain, sanitary sewer, streets and storm sewer on Bennett Place and Blossom Road . Dietz reported that a cul-de-sac had been installed . He said that pavement had not been extended due to a request by Wagner, McDonald, and Welter , owner ' s of the last 3 lots due to the possibility for future development . Dietz stated that the project came in approximately 15% below the feasibility study . Dietz reported the project costs to be $456, 417 . 00, the City share to be $4, 663 . 00, with a net assessment of $451, 754 . 00 . Dietz proposed a 20 year assessment period at 8% interest . Dietz stated that because the lots were not uniform in size and because of the development potential a front foot assessment was used . Dietz said that the Wagner , McDonald, and Welter properties were assessed C;1, 700 for gravel road restoration in lieu of the assessment for concrete curb and gutter and bituminous pavement . 1, Asse:.;sment 11oalring ^ September 8 , 1988 David Nelson, 3050 Chicago Avenue , stated that he would be homesteading the property at 9950 Bennett Place on October 1, 1988 . Nelson stated that the assessment would cost him 5250 to $300 per month just in interest . Nelson realized that he owned a lot of property and that when the property was developed he would come out financially, but until that time the assessment would create a financial hardship. Nelson stated that the assessment was for 3 . 53 acres and a front footage of 278 . 7, but he had a certified survey which showed his property at 2 . 49 acres and a front footage of 232 . 7 . Nelson said that the City was requiring an additional 13 . 5 feet of his property for a 60-foot right-of-way, which would make the lot size actually 2 . 42 acres . Nelson stated that he believed the assessment for the construction of the turn lane and the by-pass lane at County Road 1 and Bennett Place should be assessed over a larger area or taken out of the City's General Fund, since these items would benefit more properties than just those on Bennett Place and Blossom Lane . Dietz stated that per a letter from Nelson dated 4-29-88, whic2. questioned the acreage, the assessment was computed using 2 . 43 acres; however, the discrepancy on the front footage was not brought up at that time and a front g footage of 278 feet was used . Dietz said he would check on the front footage . Dietz said that the cost of the , turn lane was approximately $13, 000 to $14, 000, which would on?.y represent approximately $1 per front foot . Dietz said that the turn lane was installed for the safety, of the neighborhood and was deemed necessary due to development potential of the area . Dietz stated that the policy regarding homestead property was that the property needed to be homesteaded prior to the Special Assessment Hearing . Peterson commented that technically a person had to reside in the home on January lst or June 1st to homestead . Dietz said that there was a lot of development property in the area and the exclusion policy had been established to recognize benefit for long term residents which had well and septic systems already in place and which had been paying taxes . Pidcock asked if all the properties for this project were assessed for the turn lane . Dietz replied that all the properties had been assessed approximately $l per front foot. Harold Johnson, 9995 Bennett Lane, stated that his property was not on the assessment roll . Dietz believed that the property had been subdivided which would change the PID number . Dietz stated that he would look into the property numbers . Johnson stated that he had sold a lot which bordered on Windsor Terrace . Bentley asked Dietz how the assessment roll for this project should be dealt with tonight . A short recess was held for Dietz to z AsseSsmerst Nearirig 9 se-ptelnbei 190C investigate the PID numbers . Dietz reported that the new PID numbers had been determined, Johnson had been informed of the assessments and the issue had been resolved . Bentley asked what would be done about the Nelson property. Dietz replied that there would be an adjustment to the front footage . Jullie suggested that the homestead consideration could be extended since Nelson would be living in the home this fall and he already had private water and sewer . Pidcock stated that he would need to prove residence by October 1, 1988 . Dietz stated that the assessment rolls had to be certified to Hennepin County by October 9, 1988, so it would be critical to have Nelson prove residence as soon as possible . MOTION : Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Assessment Roll for Project I . C. 52-105, subject to the appropriate corrections to the Nelson property, PID # 25- 116-22-41-0037 . 3 5 . ProJ!gct �„_ C. �2-10�A, storm sewer , sanitary sewer, watermain and streets in/on Windsor Terrace . Dietz reported this project to be a 100% petition project by the developer and was added as a change order to the 52-105 project . Dietz said this was for an extension of Windsor Terrace . Dietz reported the project costs to be $58, 954 . 00 . Dietz sated that the developer requested that 9 lots split the assessment at $6, 550 . 44 per lot . He said that Mr . Cardarelle had requested that his 4 lots be assessed as 7 lots, thus reflecting the $3, 743 . 11 for each of the 7 lots . Dietz proposed that this project be assessed over a 5 year period at 8% interest . i MQTIQN : Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Assessment Roll for Project 52-105A. Motion carried unanimously. 6 . Eroject I . C. 52- 09, streets, storm sewer, watermain and sanitary sewer in Sunnybrook Road west of Homeward Hills Road . Dietz reported that this project cause about due to the development of a subdivision called Meadow Park . He reported that a feasibility study had been done . Dietz reported that because of the soil conditions the project costs were approximately 20% higher than the feasibility study. Dietz reported the project cost to be $131, 684 . 00, the City share to be $16, 038 . 00, with the net assessment to be $113,337 . 00 . Dietz explained the City share to be r A:siz.isment Hr--arinq 10 September 3, 1033 for the park in the area . Dietz proposed the assessment period to be for 20 years at 8% interest . Dietz reported that the higher costs were for an additional $8, 000 for extra fill and approximately $3, 000 for subgrade correction . Dietz stated that a letter of objection had been received from Patricia Nelsen; however, he believed that the assessment was in line with other projects . He said that the assessment was done on the front footage and unit basis as per the original feasibility study and suggested that the assessment be levied as shown . Peterson asked Nelson if she was aware of the appeal. process offered beyond the City Council . Nelson stated that she was aware of the process, but still wished to address the Council . Patricia Nelson, 12205 Sunnybrook Road, stated that she believed the assessment to far exceed the added value to her older home. Nelson had retainer: a professional real estate appraiser which concluded that any assessment in excess of $6,500 would not add to the value of the property. Nelson stated that in the original feasibility study her assessment was $9, 843, but the final assessment was for ;12, 950 . 03 which represents an approximate increase of 30%, which she believed to be excessive . Nelson believed the high assessment to hurt the marketability of the older home and would increase the j possibility for financial loss on her part. Nelson stated that on the original feasibility study the Meadow Park subdivision had assessments totalling approximately $90, 000, but on the final roll their assessment only totaled $81, 000 representing a decrease of approximately $9, 000 . Nelson questioned why Meadow Park 's assessment decreased while her assessment increased approximately 30%. Nelson believed the inequitability of the assessments for the 3 existing homes should be spread out to the City and the Meadow Park subdivision. Dietz stated that when the feasibility study was done Staff had tried to reflect more costs into the Meadow Park subdivision . He said that the City had not constructed any of the interior streets of the subdivision. Dietz reported that 16 of the lots which do not connect directly to the sanitary sewer were being assessed . Dietz believed that Staff had taken into account that the development would pay a higher than usual share of the costs . Pidcock asked Dietz why all of Sunnybrook Road was not assessed instead of stopping at the park . Dietz replied that the acreage of these lots were significant and the assessments would have exceeded $30, 000 . He said that there was potential for future development of these properties and that assessments should wait until the r properties developed . I Assessment Hearing 11 September u, 1138 Pidcock asked Dietz if because of soil problems on Homeward Hills Road why Staff had not anticipated soil problems with this part of the road . Dietz replied that f there was money budgeted for soil problems, but the costs t exceeded what was originally anticipated. ' Anderson asked Dietz what the City had done in the past when the final costs came in this much over the feasibility study. Dietz replied that this had only happened one other time during his employment and the project had been a 100% petition project with a 5 year payback . Dietz said that the Council had increased the payback period for an additional 5 years . Dietz stated that the assessment period for this project was 20 years and did not see any benefit in extending the payback period due to the fact that Nelson was considering selling the home . Anderson stated that this project came about due to a request by a developer and the existing residents did not need City sewer or water . Anderson believed this was a situation of growth and asked what had been done in the past to defer payments . Dietz replied that the utilities are not the significant amount of the assessment . Jullie suggested that because of the over-run of costs the exclusion amount could be doubled, which would bring the sewer and water costs more in line and the initial assessment would be reduced . Peterson stated that while this could be done, it does not address Nelson's concern about the assessment exceeding the added value to the home . Peterson commented that he did not believe the Council was in a position to answer this . Peterson said that this was why the higher appeal process was available . Pidcock asked if there was any way to work the difference in the cost overruns and divide this among the three properties to reduce the assessments . Jullie replied that this type of action would set a precedent . Dietz replied that there had to be some form of uniformity in the assessments and that any reduction would have to be for all of the properties . Dietz said that there had to be a rationale behind the assessments . Pidcock said that the best the Council could do then would be to do as City Manager Jullie suggested and double the exclusion. Bentley stated that the problem was to make a determination as to the value of the property, which the Council did not have the authority to do. Bentley believed that the value of the property would have to be determined by the courts . Dietz stated that if the appeal went to court and was reduced it would not effect the Meadow Park assessments . MOTION : C 4 r c A:;6e .snient Ffr,aririg 12 �ept�niber 1988 Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to double the amount of the exclusion for the 3 homesteaded properties and reduce the 1989 assessment amount . Peterson asked that Dietz notify the other two property owners . Dietz replied that this was standard procedure . Motion carried unanimously . MOTION : Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the Assessment Roll for Project I .C. 52-109 as amended by the previous motion. Motion carried unanimously. 7 . QrgJgct I .C . 5 -110, sidewalk along West 76th Street . . Dietz reported that the p project was currently under : contract . He stated that the project costs were $5, 921 . 00 x to be assessed over a 5 year period at 8% interest . Dietz did not foresee the costs exceeding or decreasing from the projected amount . MOTION : Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Assessment Roll for Project I .C. 52-110 . Motion carried unanimously. 8 . xQjegtI .C . 52-117, watermain from Baker Road to Rowland Road north of Dryant Lake . Dietz reported the project costs to be $202, 307. 00, the City share to be $139, 757 . 00, with a net assessment of $62, 550 . 00 to be levied over a 20 year period at 8% interest. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Assessment Roll for Project I .C. 52-117 . Motion carried unanimously. 9 . Project I . C. 52-119, sanitary sewer and watermain to serve Shady Oak Ridge . Dietz rep:�rted the project to be a 100% petition project . Dietz reported the project costs to be $198,866 .00, the City share to be $43, 920 . 00, a 5% Petition credit of $2, 700 . 00, with a net assessment of $152, 246 . 00 . Dietz explained that the City share was for watermain from Fallbrook Road to the Luknic Fifth Addition . He said the c $2, 700 represented a down payment by Ruzic . Dietz C suggested the project be assessed over a 5 year period at R C' r f 'riJ:JC�; J:I2LI7t Huar ing 13 September 8, 1988 8% interest . Dietz stated that a 12" watermain was put in which bisected the property. He said that Ruzic put the watermain in and the City had agreed to pay the oversizing costs . Dietz stated that currently there were discussions regarding what the exact amount should be . Dietz stated that Ruzic estimated the cost at approximately $15, 500 and the Engineering Staff estimated the cost at approximately $10, 000 . He said that the amount would be resolved soon, but that it did not directly effect this assessment . Dietz stated the assessment was spread over 26 lots all of which were owned by Ruzic . John Rice, Attorney for Joseph Ruzic, presented a letter to the Council stating the objections regarding the assessment . Rice stated that the oversizing costs had been estimated at $16, 439 . Rice presented the following objections : I ) the area benefited by the project was not properly determined, the Luknic and Pavelka properties were excluded from the assessment 2 ) the costs of the improvements had not been distributed proportionately 3) q the assessment process was subject to irregularities and was not in accordance with Minnesota Statues Chapter 429 4 ) the bid process was not used for securing services of Rieke Carroll Muller Associates 5) the cost of insulation board exceeded the original bid in excess of 25% 6 ) eight construction costs were excessive and/or unnecessary as described in the letter to become part of the record . Peterson stated that these were legal questions which the Council could not deal with. Bentley commented that these issues should be addressed to the City Attorney . Dietz replied that Ruzic had signed a developers agreement and that the following was part of that agreement : Section V.B r lieu of the obligation imposed by subparagraph V.A above, Developer may submit a 100% petition signed by all owners of the property, requesting the City to install the improvements . Tf Developer chooses to execute the 100% petition, Developer waives all rights they have by virtue of Minnesota State Statues Sec . 429 . 081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity of amounts, or the procedure used by the City in levying the assessments and hereby releases the City, its officers, agents, and employees from any and all liability related to or arising out of the levying of the assessments . Upon approval by the City Council, the City may cause said Improvements to be made and special assessments for all costs for said improvements will be levied on the property, except any property which is or shall be dedicated to the public, over a five-year period . Dietz stated that Staff had relied on the petition, Ruzic was aware of the costs before the contract was awarded . Dietz stated that meetings had been held with Ruzic and f .'�s5es3�ner►t Ilr rir,y 14 Septemb- ur 1988 Luknic where he was shown an agreement which they had entered into regarding special assessments, how the projects would be developed, and how the utilities would be installed . Dietz stated disbelief regarding the letter presented tonight . He said that if the developer and his attorney wished to proceed with this it would have to be resolved in the courts . Dietz challenged the statements made regarding irregularities and inappropriate action by Staff and categorically denied that any of these things had taken place . Dietz stated that City Attorney Pauly had not reviewed this letter and suggested that the Council could continue this item for two weeks or the Council could levy the assessment and have the issues settled in court. Peterson stated that the developer had a legal recourse available . MOT I O1i-.1 Harris moved, seconded by Bentley to approve the Assessment Roll for Project I .C . 52-119 . Motion carried unanimously. 10 . Project I . C . 52-121, streets and utilities to serve Nemec Knolls . Dietz reported the project costs to be $75, 690 . 00 to be levied over a 5 year period at 8% interest . �QTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Assessment Roll for Project I .C. 52-121 . Motion carried unanimously. 11 . Supplementais Dietz stated that Touve was the builder for the home of Howard Remeta . Dietz said that Touve believed that he had paid the connection fee at the time of the building permit Issuance, but the Building Department records show that the connection fee had not been paid . Dietz suggested ` that this item be continued until the next regular Council meeting . Touve stated that he remembered writing a check for approximately $10, 000 at the time he got the building permit . He said that as far as he was concerned everything had been paid in full . MOTION: Assessment Hearing 15 September 8 , 1988 Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to continue Item 05- 116-22-33-0033 under Connection Fees until the next regular Council meeting . Motion carried unanimously. { MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Supplementals as listed with the exception of Item 05-116- 22-33-0033 as per previous motion. Motion carried unanimously. MOTI Oti Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve Resolution 88-194 with the exception previously noted . Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10 : 15 PM. d