Loading...
103096 CC Reg Min . . . "'" CITY OF SHOREWOOD SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDA Y, OCTOBER 30, 1996 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 6:30 P.M. Mayor Bean called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Bean; Councilmembers Benson, McCarty, Shaw, Stover; City Administrator Hurm; City Attorney Tim Keane; Finance Director A1 Rolek and Engineer Larry Brown. Review Agenda B. 2. 6:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR WATERMAIN PROJECT NO. 95-15, SMITHTOWN ROAD (SOUTH LINK) A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Regarding Assessment Roll for Project 95-15, Smithtown Road (Southern Link) Mayor Bean noted there were no persons from the public present at the meeting. He opened the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, Mayor Bean closed the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. Councilmember Stover commented the project had been completed, it needs to be paid for and this is the best way to accomplish that. McCarty moved, Benson seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 96-96, "A Resolution Regarding Assessment Roll for Project 95-15, Smithtown Road (Southern Link)." Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Bean recessed the meeting at 6:48 p.m. and reconvened at 7:05 p.m. 3. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR WATERMAIN PROJECT NO. 95-14, EUREKA ROAD A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Regarding Assessment Roll for Project No. 95-14, Eureka Road City Attorney Keane explained the procedure to be followed, noting the purpose of the hearing is to allow affected property. owners to make inquiry of the proposed assessment and also file an objection which would then allow for an appeal to be filed in District Court. The property owner has an opportunity to offer evidence and testimony in support of their objection and to bring to the attention of the Council any unique facts or circumstances which may address a potential error in the determination of the assessment or the assessment roll. Mayor Bean noted a written objection had been submitted for Parcel 18 by Kelly Krauss, 5525 Eureka Road. . . . ,- SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 30, 1996 - PAGE 2 City Attorney Keane stated the Council had been provided with an Opinion of Value, dated July 1, 1995, prepared by C.E. LaSalle & Associates, a second Opinion of Benefit, dated October 29, 1996, prepared by City Assessor Rolf Erickson, as well as a Summary Opinion of Value and Benefit, dated October 29, 1996, prepared by Steve DeCaster, MAl, of Lunz, Massopust, Reid, DeCaster & Lammers, Inc., for purposes of consideration of the City's burden of benefit equal to or exceeding the proposed assessment per parcel. . Attorney Keane noted the objective of the meeting to be full, fair, open and complete and accord all affected property owners an opportunity to address the Council and the proposed assessment roll. City Engineer Brown briefly explained the project. Finance Director A1 Rolek explained the amount of the assessments for single family and multi-family properties. In addition, he reviewed the methods of payment which would be available as well as the criteria which would need to be met to qualify for a deferment of the assessment. Attorney Keane commented notice of the Council's Special Meeting was provided through mail and published notice. Mayor Bean opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, Mayor Bean closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Councilmember Stover asked for a clarification of the process to be followed in requesting a deferment of the assessment until the subject property could be sold. Rolek explained the procedure to be followed. Councilmember Stover reiterated the project has been completed, it needs to be paid for and this is the best way to accomplish that. McCarty moved, Benson seconded adopting "RESOLUTION NO. 96-97, "A Resolution Regarding Assessment Roll for Project No. 95-14, Eureka Road." Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Bean recessed the meeting at 7:19 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:05 p.m. 4. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR W ATERMAIN PROJECT NO. 95-16, SMITHTOWN ROAD (COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TO EUREKA ROAD) A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Regarding Assessment Roll for Project No. 95-16, Smithtown Road City Attorney Keane noted the Council had been provided with an Opinion of Value, dated July 1, 1995, prepared by C.E. LaSalle & Associates, a second Opinion of Benefit, dated October 29, 1996, prepared by City Assessor Rolf Erickson, as well as a Summary Opinion of Value and Benefit, dated October 29, 1996, prepared by Steve DeCaster, MAl, of Lunz, Massopust, Reid, DeCaster & Lammers, Inc., for purposes of consideration of the City's burden of benefit equal to or exceeding the proposed assessment per parcel. City Attorney Keane explained the procedure to be followed, noting the purpose of the hearing is to be full, fair, open and complete and accord all affected property owners an opportunity to address the Council and to make inquiry of the proposed assessment and also file an objection which would then allow for an appeal to be filed in District Court. The property owner has an opportunity to offer evidence and testimony in support of their objection and to bring to the attention of the Council any unique facts or circumstances which may address a potential error in the determination of the assessment or the assessment roll. . . . .SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 30, 1996 - PAGE 3 City Engineer Brown noted written objections had been received from the property owners of Parcels 4, 20, 21, 22, 36 and 37. He briefly described the project explaining Parcel 29 was being removed from the roll since that property was not noticed properly for the public hearing process. This parcel will be assessed along with the Wedgewood Drive watermain project at a future time. Finance Director AI Rolek explained the amount of the assessments for single family and multi- family properties. In addition, he reviewed the methods of payment which would be available as well as the criteria which would need to be met to qualify for a deferment of the assessment. Mayor Bean opened the public hearing at 8: 17 p.m. Tom Dahlberg, 25270 Smithtown Road, explained his belief the letter from the LMRD consultant argues that the $5,000 figure cannot be guaranteed to be objectively valid for any particular property. He feels the suggestion was being made to the City to review the assessment cost of each property on an individual basis. Mr. Dahlberg noted in the documentation of the study, adjustments were made to remove differences except the availability of municipal water when the comparable homes were studied for the assessment. He requested detailed documentation of the adjustments which were made to the comparables and the methodology used to arrive at the $5,000 figure. Edward Bergslien, 24785 Smithtown Road, expressed concern he would be assessed another $5,000 when the watermain is put in on Club Lane. He noted he had been told he would not be required to hook up at this time, but could wait for a closer hook up to become available. Mayor Bean confirmed this was accurate. Councilmember Stover requested the criteria for deferment of the assessment be reviewed. Finance Director AI Rolek explained the criteria which would need to be met for a property owner to qualify for a deferment. " Bob Northrup, 25335 Smithtown Road, asked why his property was listed as a multi-family parcel. Mayor Bean noted the record reflects there are two separate and distinct dwelling units on the property. Mr. Northrup explained one well supplies water to both dwellings and there are multiple owners who are listed on the mortgage. Mayor Bean pointed out if the two dwellings were separated, the assessment would actually be higher. David Cooley, 24725 Smithtown Road, explained his belief he will be paying higher property tax on his property which would have theoretically increased in value due to the availability of municipal water. He inquired if all properties would be assessed the same value if they are not all hooked up. He stated he does not have any problem with the $5,000 assessment. City Attorney Keane stated in speaking with the City Assessor, an adjustment is not made due to the improvement or the assessment. There may be adjustments over time reflecting the increased value of property sales within the area. Mr. Cooley asked if the value of a particular property would be affected if one property is hooked up to municipal water and the other is not. Attorney Keane explained whether an individual property is hooked up is not a factor in the City Assessor's valuation. Frances Johnson, 25335 Smithtown Road, noted her objection to the assessment stating she did not feel this was an improvement, but rather a burden. Ms. Johnson felt the developers and people selling their properties should carry a larger part of the burden. Hearing no further public testimony, Mayor Bean closed the public hearing at 8:37 p.m. . . . . 'SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 30, 1996 - PAGE 4 Councilmember Benson pointed out written objections to the assessment must be fIled by the close of the hearing. Tom Dahlberg submitted a written objection to the assessment at this time. Councilmember Shaw clarified this would not apply to senior citizens or others who would be requesting a deferment. Councilmember Stover asked if the deferment process would need to be refIled each year: Attorney Keane clarified a deferment shall be renewed each year upon a similar filing by September 30th. McCarty moved, Benson seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 96-98, "A Resolution Regarding Assessment Roll for Project No. 95-16, Smithtown Road with the removal of Parcel 29." Motion passed 5/0. Councilmember Stover noted the project has been completed and it needs to be paid for. She stated this is the fairest and most reasonable way to accomplish that. 5. ADJOURNMENT Shaw moved, Benson seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:43 p.m. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED9 Cheryl Wallat, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial ATTEST: ~, ,~<: ':j,) ""~,,,,-')l''''i;~';:! ' i~~x:~,{:::-t" L",,-".,~ ROBERT B. BEAN, MAYOR ,/,\ t \! / 1 L,,~vvww llt+vvVvV\ JA~ES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR V