10-22-1984 CC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Minutes October 22, 1984 Page Four roads and therefore, building permits could not be issued. Mayor Hinkle indicated that more than half of the people in the Heavenly Hills Addition requested that the City Council authorize the improvment project and assess the costs. Mayor Hinkle further indicated that all property owners in the addition were assessed equally except for the Goulet property. Mayor Hinkle indicated that the City Council felt that the Goulet property should be assessed four units, as if the property were subdivided, approximately four lots would have access onto the street. Councilmember Gunkel indicated that from the beginning of the project, it has been proposed that the cost of the project would be divided equally among the property owners in the Heavenly Hills Addition with the exception that the Goulet property would be assessed four units, as their property could be subdivided into approximately 10 acre parcels. Councilmember Gunkel indicated that she worked with a committee of Heavenly,Hills residents reviewing various options and aiming ata total project cost of approximately $130,000 to $135,000. Councilmember Gun- kel indicated that th~ project proceeded in as cost-effective manner as possible. Councilmember Engstrom indicated that from the beginning of the project it was determined that the Goulet property should receive four unit assessments to be equitable with the rest of the project. Councilmember Engstrom further indicated that the City Council authorized the project based on a petition submitted to the City Council with a majority of residents in favor of the project. Councilmember Engstrom further indicated that the proposed assessment was fair and should be approved by the City. Councilmember Schuldt indicated that the City Council acted in good faith, author- izing the project to be completed and further indicated that he felt if people wanted to initiate legal action, not all citizens in the City of Elk River should be required to pay those legal costs and that the legal costs should be a part of the project. Councilmember Schuldt further indicated that he felt the $30,000 amount as suggested by the City Administrator should be included in the project cost as legal contingency. Mayor Hinkle indicated that he did not feel the City Council should include a $30,000 legal contingency in the improvement costs of the project. Mayor Hinkle indicated that he felt the City Council acted in good faith by authorizing the project and felt the residents were treated fairly by the proposed assessment. Mayor Hinkle further indicated that he felt the City Council was taking away the citizen's right to appeal by adding $30,000 to the cost of the project for legal contingencies. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT MOVED TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSMENT ROLL AS PRESENTED AND TO INCLUDE $30,000 FOR POSSIBLE LEGAL COSTS AND IF APPEALS HAVE NOT BEEN FILED IN COURT WITHIN THE THIRTY DAY PERIOD, THE CITY COUNCfL WOULD HOLD A SUPPLEMENTARY ASSESSMENT HEARING TO DELETE THE $30,000 HELD IN CONTINGENCY FOR LEGAL COSTS. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-1. MAYOR HINKLE OPPOSED. 4. Varner Administrative Subdivision Mayor Hinkle indicated that Mr. Donald Varner of 12728 217th Avenue N.W. has re- quested an administrative subdivision to divide a lot of approximately 5 to 6 acres