1988-02-16 CC Minutes
.
.
.
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
POBOX 131
ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301
PHONE (612) 497-3384
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 16, 1988
The regular meetlng of the Albertvl11e Clty Councl1 was called to order
by Mayor Loretta Roden. Members present lncluded Gary Schwenzfeler, Donatus
Vetsch and Bob Braun, wlth Councl1 member Don Cornellus absent. Others
present lncluded Maureen Andrews, Bob Ml11er, Thore Meyer, Bob Sullentrap,
Brad Farnham and Dan Wl1son.
The Councl1 revlewed the agenda for the evenlng's meetlng. A motlon was
made by Bob Braun and seconded by Donatus Vetsch. All were In favor and
the motlon carrled.
The mlnutes of the February 1, 1988, Councl1 meetlng were revlewed and approved.
A motlon was made by Donatus Vetsch to approve the mlnutes, WhlCh was then
seconded by Gary Schwenzfeler. All were In favor and the motlon carrled.
The reVlew of the mlnutes of the work meetlng held February 9, 1988, were
tabled untl1 the flrst meetlng ln March.
Ms. Sharon Grlel of the Multlple Sclerosls Soclety was present to request
permlsslon to sell pull-tabs at Ronay's on Maln. The Councl1 was lnformed
that a booth would be set up on the bar slde of the resturant and that the
M S. Soclety would be looklng for a local person to sell the pull-tabs.
Maureen Andrews asked lf Ms. Grlel had brought along caples of the lnformatlon
showlng the agreement between the M.S. Soclety and Ronay Hel1delberger and
the plan for the locatlon of the booth. Ms. Grlel stated that she was surprlsed
that the Clty had not recelved the lnformatlon because lt hao been sent
out prlor to the meetlng. She assured the Councl1 that she would send another
set of lnformatlon out to the Clty on Wednesday mornlng.
There was no other dlScusslon so a motlon was made to approve the pull-tab
llcense for the Multlple Sclerosls Soclety. The motlon was made by Gary
Schwenzfeler and seconded by Bob Braun. The motlon was approved pendlng
the Clty's recelvlng the lnformatlon.
The Councl1 next revlewed the lssue regardlng the constructlon slte at the
elementary school. The Councl1 was lnformed that Nancy Blstodeau had requested
that the Clty check to see lf we could requlre the contractor to supply
data sheets on materlals used durlng the constructlon on premlse of the
slte. Maureen explalned that Nancy and Rlchard Blstodeau had requested
to be on the agenda, but because of a faml1y 111ness would not be attendlng
the meetlng.
Make our Cay Your Cay
We mvae Home Industrv Busmess
.
.
.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 2
In an effort to be able to respond to Mrs. B1stodeau's request, Maureen
requested that Loren Kohnen, the C1ty BU1ld1ng Inspector, research the 1ssue
and be prepared to answer any quest10ns that m1ght ar1se regard1ng the 1ssue.
A memo (attached to the off1c1al m1nutes) was rev1ewed by the Counc1l, 1n
wh1ch Loren stated that the school plans were rev1ewed by both the C1ty
BU1ld1ng Inspector and the State BU1ld1ng Code D1v1s10n. Th1s reV1ew determ1ned
that the plans and mater1als meet state code. The memo further stated that
1f any problems ar1se from the project that 1t 1S the sole respons1b1l1ty of the
contractor, arch1tect and bU1ld1ng owner to correct any and all problems.
Because of these f1nd1ngs, 1t was determ1ned that the C1ty 1S not respons1ble
for requ1r1ng that the safety data sheets be located on the s1te of construct10n,
but rather the School D1str1ct should follow through on tak1ng the necessary
act10n to assure that the proper 1nformat10n 1S ava1lable.
Maureen was asked to follow up w1th a letter to the school, lett1ng them
know that the problem had been brought to the C1ty'S attent10n and ask that
they follow up on Mr. and Mrs. B1stodeaus's request. It was also requested
that Maureen follow up w1th the B1stodeau's and 1nform them of the C1ty'S
f1nd1ngs.
The records should note that there was no new legal bus1ness that the Counc1l
needed to take act10n on.
The Counc1l next rev1ewed the feas1b1l1ty reports for the 1988 1mprovement
projects and took the necessary act10n on each of the follow1ng reports
(a copy of each of the feas1b1l1ty reports has been 1ncluded as part of
the off1c1al Counc1l packet):
BARTHEL MANOR - 2nd ADDITION (1988-2): The eng1neers rev1ewed w1th the
Counc1l the1r f1nd1ng on the proposed street 1mprovements for Barthel Manor
2nd Add1t1on. The project w1ll cons1st of surmountable curb and gutter
throughout the project w1th the except10n of Barthel Industr1al , wh1ch
w1ll be 1mproved uS1ng the standard B-6l8 curb. The street surface w1ll
cons1st of a 3 1nch b1tum1nous base 1n the res1dent1al area and 4 1nches
on the extens10n of Barthel Industr1al Dr1ve. Some m1nor gravel replace~ent
and shap1ng was also 1ncluded 1n the cost of the 1mprovement. All the boulevards
shall be shaped w1th black d1rt and seeded. The est1mated cost of the 1mprovement
totaled $137,900.00, Wh1Ch 1ncluded a cost breakdown of Eng1neer1ng, local
legal)adm1n1strat10n, and cont1ngenc1es. Th1S f1gure does not take 1nto
account any bond1ng or f1nanc1ng costs (Wh1Ch w1ll be added pr10r to the not1ce
be1ng pr1nted 1n the Crow R1ver News).
It was found and determ1ned that the Eng1neers for the C1ty reported that
the street 1mprovement for Barthel Manor - 2nd Add1t10n 1S feas1ble and
should be made as proposed. A mot10n accept1ng the f1nd1ngs of the Barthel
Manor - 2nd Add1t1on (1988-1) Feas1b1l1ty Report was made by Gary Schwenzfe1er
and seconded by Bob Braun. All were 1n favor and the mot10n carr1ed.
PSYK'S 4th ADDITION: The d1Scuss1on on Psyk's 4th Add1t10n was tabled because
Doug Psyk dec1ded not to request the 1mprovements be done 1n 1988.
HIGHWAY 37 TRUNK SEWER IMPROVEMENT (INTERCEPTOR, LIFT STATION & FORCEMAIN)
(1988-2): The eng1neers rev1ewed w1th the Counc1l the1r f1nd1ngs on the
proposed expans10n of the sewer system (lnterceptor, 11ft stat10n and forcema1n).
The report descr1bed the project 10cat1on and each element of the project:
.
.
.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 3
INTERCEPTOR - wlll conslst of a 2,450 foot, 12 lnch gravlty Ilne
WhlCh wlll serVlce the Darkenwald development area and wlll be connected
lnto the eXlstlng 12 lnch plpe whlch wlll allow for future sanltary sewer
serVlce for the area north of the lnterstate.
LIFT STATION - wlll be a submerslble pump 11ft statlon, contalnlng
2 - 175 gpm pumps and wlll serVlce most of the remalnlng undeveloped land
In Albertvllle.
The report notes that lt does not lnclude costs for a standby generator
or a bUlldlng to house the 11ft statlon controld. The report states that
a stand-by generator wlll be needed at the tlme that addltlonal connectlons
would be made to the system, but wlll llkely be recommended at at later date.
Addltlonally, the report goes on to state that a bUlldlng to house the controls
and an alarm system had been requested by Ken Llndsay. These costs were
not lncluded but the the report states the englneers could supply them at
the Councll's request.
FORCEMAIN - wlll be a 6 lnch ductlle lron plpe and at the rallroad
crosslng the englneers proposed to use a 30 - lnch caslng wlth both a 6
lnch plpe lnslde to ellmlnate a second Jacklng under the rallroad at the
tlme a larger Ilne would need to be bUllt.
The estlmated cost of the lmprovements totaled $215,735.00. Thls flgure
lncluded a cost breakdown of englneerlng, local legal, admlnlstratlon and
contlngencles, but does not lnclude any bondlng or flnanclng costs. (These
costs wlll be added by Juran and Moody prlor to bond lssuance).
It was found and determlned that the Englneers for the Clty reported that
the Hlghway 37 Trunk Sewer Improvement (1988-2) lS feaslble and should be
made as proposed. A motlon acceptlng the flndlngs of the feaslblllty report
was made by Bob Braun and seconded by Donatus Vetsch. All were In favor
and the motlon carrled.
DARKENWALD DEVELOPMENT - PHASE 1 (1988-3): The englneers revlewed wlth
the Councll thelr flndlngs on the proposed lmprovements for the Darkenwald
development "Westwwd". The project wlll lnclude:
SANITARY SEWER - conslstlng of 2,800 feet of 8 lnch PVC plpe and
sewer serVlces of 6 lnch Ilne for the apartments and 4 lnch for the resldentlal
lots. The system wlll dlscharge lnto the proposed Hlghway 37 lnterceptor.
WATERMAIN - conslstlng of 1,450 feet of 8 lnch ductlle lron plpe
(DIP) trunk watermaln from the lntersectlon of C.S.A.H. 19 & 37 to the flrst
phase of the Darkenwald development. The watermaln wlthln the plat wlll
cons 1st of 1,550 feet of 8 lnch DIP and 1,400 feet of 6 lnch DIP. The serVlce
Ilnes wlll be 1 lnch copper for the resldentlal lots and 6 lnch DIP for
the multlple lots.
STORM SEWER - conslstlng of 12 lnch to 33 lnch plpe conveYlng the
storm water runnoff from the low areas and other crltlcal dralnage pOlnts
to the proposed future streets and wlll dlscharge lnto County Dltch No.9.
STREETS - wlll cons 1St of a 3 lnch bltumlnous pavement and surmountable
curb and gutter placed over a 12 lnch gravel base. Restoratlon wlll conslst
of seedlng or soddlng as requlred.
The estlmated cost of the lmprovement totals $620,700.00 and lncludes englneerlng,
local legal, admlnlstratlon and contlngencles. ThlS flgure does not take
lnto account any bondlng or flnAnclng costs (WhlCh wlll be added prlor to
the notlce belng prlnted In the Crow Rlver News).
.
.
.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 4
It was found and deter~lned by the CIty EngIneer that saId Improvement
for the Darkenwald Development - Phase I are feasIble and should be made
as proposed. A motIon acceptIng the fIndIngs of the Darkenwald Development
Phase I FeaSIbIlIty Report was made by Gary Schwenzfeler and seconded by
Bob Braun. All were In favor and the motIon carrIed.
The mInutes should note that the CIty had receIved a petItIon for Improvements
from 100% of propertIes, WhIch waIved the rIght to an assessment hearIng.
The CouncIl was Informed by the CIty Attorney that even wIth the petItIon,
he l1kes to see the Improvement heanng held "Just In case" problems mIght
occur later. The CIty EngIneer agreed wIth thIS dIScussIon. As a result,
a motIon was made by Donatus Vetsch and seconded by Gary Schwenzfeler to
hold a publIc hearIng on March 7, 1988, at 7:30 on saId Improvements.
Mr. DennIs Boese was present to show the CouncIl hIS color desIgn for the
AlbertvIlle FrIendly CIty Days. The CouncIl agreed that they lIked the
yellow/grren/blue combInatIon WhICh Mr. Boese thInks can be obtaIned by
screenIng the desIgn.
Maureen was asked to check wIth Carol Larson regardIng the cost of buttons
for 1,00 and 2,000. In addItIon, she was asked to check on the button numberIng
system, both on the button and for drawIng prIzes.
The CouncIl authorIzed an addItIonal $50.00 to get the desIgn camera ready.
A motIon to approve the desIgn colorIng and $50.00 expendIture was made
by Bob Braun and seconded by Donatus Vetsch. All were In favor and the
motIon carrIed.
Mr. Doug Psyk was present at the meetIng and Informed the CouncIl that he
IS havIng a problem wIth 4 wheel drIve vehIcles In Psyk's 4th AddItIon.
Maureen stated she would contact the SherIff's OffIce regardIng the problem.
Bob Braun requested that the CouncIl undertake a feasIbIlIty report for
Improvements for hIS proposed development 1988-4. A motIon callIng for
the feasIbIlIty report was made by Donatus Vetsch and seconded by Gary Schwenzfeler.
The record should note that Bob Braun obstalned from votIng, all others
voted In favor of the motIon's approval.
Bob Sullentrap brIefly updated the CouncIl on the PPM water problem. He
Informed the CouncIl that 30 days had passed SInce the fIrm had been notIced
of the problem wIth no response. It was agreed that Bob should follow up
wIth another call, and If no actIon IS taken at that tIme, some legal steps
may need to be taken to resolve the Issue once and for all.
Ken LIndsay requested through the admInIstrator the CIty consIder sellIng
3 pIeces of equIpment. The CouncIl tabled thIS dIScussIon untIl a later
meetIng.
Gary Schwenzfeler Informed the CouncIl that Ken had requested that a notIce
be put In the paper regardIng the blowIng of snow Into the street and that
letters be sent out to those people who vIolate the state law governIng
lItterIng; WhICh IS the law pertaInIng to placIng snow back Into the street.
The CouncIl next revIewed the Income receIved and bIlls to be paId. The
CouncIl was Informed that the Water Products bIll stIll has not been corrected
should not be paId. WIth no other questIons or comments on the bIlls, a
motIon was made by Bob Braun and a second by Gary Schwenzfeler approvIng
the bIlls wIth the exceptIon of the Water Products bIll. All were In favor
and checks 8507 through 8514, except 8517 were paId.
The CouncIl brIefly revIewed the InformatIon on the computer system. No
actIon was taken at thIS tIme but wIll be dIscussed at the next meetIng.
.
.
.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 5
The Councl1 was Informed that a vacancy on the Plannlng Commlsslon has occured.
There was some dlScusslon who could fl11 the posltlon. Maureen was asked
to contact Kevln Mealhouse and Duane Sweep regardlng thelr Interest In servlng
on the Commlsslon.
Gary Schwenzfeler and Maureen Andrews brlefly revlewed the program from
the League's Legls1atlve Conference wlth the Councl1. A more detal1ed report
wl11 be glven at a later meetlng.
The Darkenwald project was brlefly revlewed by the Councl1. Donatus expressed
hlS concern about the dept of the lots. Maureen stated she would pass thlS
on to the developers.
Doug Psyk asked about the Slze of the
the standard 12,500 square foot lots.
project was belng developed under the
for more flexlbl1lty.
Donatus Vetsch revlewed wlth the Councl1 the flndlngs of the meetlng wlth
Sherlff's representatlve regardlng the current pollce coverage (materlals
Included In Councl1 packet). Donatus stated that another meetlng was gOlng
to be scheduled In March and suggested that some of the other Councl1 mlght
11ke to attend as well.
lots and why the Clty was not requlrlng
It was explalned that the Darkenwald
planned development concept provldlng
Maureen was asked to check on a pollce refund of some $4,900.00 for the
next meetlng.
The Councl1 agreed that there needed to be another work meetlng to reVlew
the feaslbl1lty reports and other bondlng Issues. The meetlng was set for
February 29, 1988, at 7:00.
Brad Farnham Introduced Mr. Dan Wl1son, wlth Wl1son Management Servlces,
a tax Increment consultant. Brad explalned that he had worked wlth Dan
Slnce 1980, flrst worklng wlth hlm In Waconla. It was explalned that Dan's
speclalty IS In the area of tax Increment flnanclng, plan wrltlng and develop-
ment programs.
Dan told the Councl1 that he was looklng forward to worklng wlth the Clty
on future proJects. He told the Councl1 that he was famlllar wlth the area
because hlS wlfe IS from the Rogers area. He explalned to the Councl1 what
he has done for the cltles of Maple Plaln, Buffalo, and Rockford, along
wlth several other communltles.
Dan brlefly dlscussed wlth the Councl1 what he percelved Mr. Doug Guber's
ratlonale for the very broad range, may have been because of the fact the
money of the cost Involved wlth a gas statlon/convenlence store do not
quallfy towards the tax Increment. Dan stated that the range could be the
result of the County not havlng a full set of plans, speclflcatlons and
cost breakdown. Maureen explalned that they dld the Informatlon. Flnally,
Dan stated that when worklng wlth Wrlght County before, he has not seen them
use thls large of a spread~
There was no other dlScusslon so Dan then thanked the Councl1 agaln for
the opportunlty to work wlth them.
The next Issue dlscussed by the Councl1 was the tax Increment flnanclng
for the Pat Meyer Phl11lpS 66 Statlon. Brad revlewed wIth the Councl1 the
report entltled Councl1 Actlon Item, WhlCh su~marlzed the events that occured
durlng the course of the dlScusslon wlth Meyer and hlS attorney. In addltlon,
there was addltlonal dlScusslon regardlng the Tax Increment Posltlon Statement.
John Grles asked If Brad prepared thlS Informatlon and was told, yes. Brad
went on to say that the papers were the result of the work meetlng on February
9, 1988.
.
.
.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 6
John stated that he agreed that there were several problems workIng agaInst
the proJect:
1. The cost of the land IMprovement
2. The cost of the project
3. The pOSItIon the County assessor took on the project
There was dISCUSSIon about the Issue of the pass thru. John questIoned where the
amount $10,000.00 was arrIved at. It was explaIned that based on other
pass thru's that Juran and Moody have been Involved In, that $10,000.00
was a conservatIve fIgure.
John stated that assumIng there was In fact a $10,000.00 charge, he assumed
that It could be paId for by the developer up front over the lIfe of the
Increment. It was pOInted out that It was the Intent of CouncIl that they
would not SUbSIdIze these expenses.
There was also dISCUSSIon regardIng the comparIson of land and proposal
to other tax Increment proJects. As In an earlIer meetIng, It was pOInted
out that each project should be reVIewed on ItS own merIt and must support
Itself and In thIS case the numbers were not there.
John stated that he saw the Issue as a two SIded sword. The County put
too low of an assessed value on the property to generate enough tax Increment,
but that If the project IS bUIlt, the County WIll place a hIgher value on
the property for taXIng purposes.
AddItIonally, It was pOInted out that all the fInanCIal applIcatons were
completed antICIpatIng the tax Increment fInanCIng and that WIthout the
assslstance, the project may not be bUIlt.
Pat Meyer stated that he was upset WIth the course of events that has occured.
He stated that he felt that he would be atttlbutlng to the local economy
through the Jobs he was generatIng. He also stated that he felt let down
by the CIty, that they were not "makIng our Clty...your CIty".
At thIS tIMe, Brad walked through each of the three actIon Items.
1. The CounCIl fInds that the Tax Increment generated by theMeyer
project 1S not at the magnItude to warrant publIC aSSIstance conSIderatIon.
--USIng the fIgures from the County, 1t was determIned that the publIC partlc1-
patlon for the project would not lIkely exceed $28,000.00. Brad stated
he felt that the CounCIl were comfortable w1th the conservatIon range of
money avaIlable.
John asked what would be determ1ned to be a "sufflcent magnItude" Lo warrant
d pass thru of the Increment. It was pOInted out that there was no "magIC"
number, but based on the dISCUSSIon at the work meetIng, the CounCIl felt
that In order to conSIder thIS project It would have to come In at the hIgh
end of the range prepared by the County, and even then the CounCIl would
have to take the other two Issues presented under conSIderatIon.
2. The project IS SImIlar to two eXIstIng adjacent bUSInesses who
have not been aSSIsted WIth Tax Increment Flnanc1ng. ASSIstance to the
Meyer Project could gIve the appearance of unfaIr advantage. --John stated
that he dIsagreed WIth thIS fIndIng, statIng he dId not thInk there was
a problem w1th the other two bUSInesses. In addItIon, he stated that the
C1ty d1d ass 1st the Hackenmueller project through the use of IndustrIal
Revenue Bonds (IRB). Brad pOInted out thIS fInanCIng tool does not work
on the same premIse that Tax Increment FInanCIng does, that It all actually
Just prOVIdes a net effect saVIng for the proJect, but no actual money.
Bob Braun stated that he felt that he, along WIth the other members of the
CounCIl, were concerned about the pOSSIbIlIty of puttIng one of the eXIstIng
bUSInesses out of bUSIness because of the fact tax Increment IS used on
one proJect, WhICh does not appear to support the Increment.
.
.
.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 7
3. The Counc11 supports the Meyer Project, but w111 not, overt1me,
SUbs1d1ze the $10,000.00 1n C1ty expenses to ass1st the project. --John
stated that he d1d not feel th1S was even as 1ssue because he knows the
Counc11 well enough to know that they would expect the up front costs to
be pa1d for r1ght away.
At th1S t1me, Pat Meyer commented that he was somewhat frustrated w1th the
process 1nvolved. He also told the Counc11 that one of the County Assessor's
had been heard to say that he d1d not th1nk Albertv111e needed another gas
stat10n and that he felt that th1s statement had a d1rect 1mpact on the
lack of comm1tment by the assessor's off1ce.
It was stated that Barthel's group has not had th1S type of problem w1th
the County before, that there has always been a w1111ngness to work w1th
the developer. Brad p01nted out that maybe the assessor was be1ng approached
by the wrong people (Walt Hartman and Holmes and Graven) and that 1t really
1S the developer's respons1b111ty to get the County to make a comm1tment.
At th1s t1me 1t was p01nted out that the Counc11 was ready to act on the
1ssue as presented, and that 1f Pat Meyer wanted to w1thdraw the proposal
1n order to have an opportun1ty to work on d1fferent numbers. John asked
for a couple of m1nutes to speak w1th h1S cl1ent to f1nd out how he wanted
to proceed.
It was p01nted out to the Counc11 that they would have to dec1de on how
to respond to act10n 1tem H2, prov1ded that the d1Scuss10n was cont1nued.
John stated that he d1d not feel that the Counc11 had glven the project
a fa1r chance. Maureen stated that she d1sagreed w1th th1s statement because
of the d1Scuss10n that took place at the work meet1ng She p01nted out
that 1t was a general concensus of the Counc11 that 1f $28,000.00 would
make or break the project that there had to be some concern about the secur1ty
of the project.
Aga1n, 1t was p01nted out that the Counc11 wants to see Pat Meyer bU11d
1n Albertv111e, but that 1n th1s case the project was not a strong tax
1ncrement r1sk. W1th no other d1Scuss10n, a mot10n was made by Gary Schwenzfe1er
and seconded by Bob Braun to deny the 1ncrement on the bas1s of act10n 1tems
1 - 3.
John requested at th1s t1me that the mot10n be w1thdrawn and the 1ssue be
tabled unt11 such t1me the developer talked to the assessor aga1n.
Both Gary and Bob agreed to w1thdraw the1r mot10n. A new mot10n was made
by Gary Schwenzfe1er and seconded by Bob Braun tabl1ng the 1ssue unt11 such
t1me the developer represents 1t to the Counc11. All were 1n favor and
the mot10n carr1ed. The records should note that the project f1gures w111
need to come 1n at the h1gh end of the range before the C1ty w111 recons1der
the project.
The Counc11 rece1ved a verbal feas1b111ty report on street ma1ntenance.
The C1ty Eng1neer est1mates the work to be completed w111 cost $65,000.00.
A mot10n to approve the verbal feas1b111ty and set an 1mprovement hear1ng
for street ma1ntenance was made by Bob Braun and seconded by Gary Schwenzfe1er.
All were 1n favor and the mot10n carr1ed. (Project number ass1gned to the
project 1S 1988-5, wh11e the Braun project has been ass1gned 1988-4).
There was no other bus1ness so a mot10n was made by Donatus Vetsch and seconded
by Bob Braun. All were 1n favor and the mot10n carr1ed.
'-1Y\~"--l~