CC Minutes 6-13-05
o "1 ~ ~I
City Council Meeting - June 13,2005
e. Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, August 20-21, St. Hubert's Catholic
Community Harvest Festival.
f. Resolution#2005-53: Approve Resolution for TH 101 GAP Municipal Consent, Project
04-06.
h. Resolution#2005-54: Order TH 101 GAP Project 04-06.
J. Hidden Creek Meadows:
1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract
k. Resolution#2005-55: Approve Resolution Amending the 2004 Fund Transfers.
m. Approve Concrete Quote, 2005 Playground Projects.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
I. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION COMBINING IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
ASSOCIA TED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF TH 212. PROJECT NUMBERS
04-05. 03-09-3. AND 04-06.
Rick Dorsey: Thank you Mayor, council. I'd like to get some clarification. The wording in the
resolution suggests that everything dealing with Project 04-05 has been, you know no one has
any public comments to make about it. I believe that's the way it's worded. My understanding
is, from talking to Paul is they're referring to the items related to the 212 project as there's a
number of items that are included in the feasibility study as presented back in September that
aren't part of that assessment that they needed, but it's binding projects together and it appears
the way it's, the verbiage that's in the resolution is that it's saying that we as land holders and
neighbors have had our chance to speak everything we want to say about the project and are in
agreement with it, which is not necessarily the case.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members, I can address this issue. What we're doing here
is consolidating the 2005 MUSA improvement project along with the 101 GAP and the 212
project that we've ordered. We're combining those all into one project and thus being able to
use the 20% assessments from the 2005 MUSA. That would make this project qualify for
general obligation bonds for, through the State of Minnesota. As they stood alone, Mary Ippel
had difficulty in giving an opinion as stand alone projects so what this resolution is doing is
combining all three projects and using at least 20% of the assessibility from the 2005 MUSA
area to meet that general obligation authority ruling. This is not precluding anybody in the 2005
MUSA area from contesting their assessments. At the final assessment hearing I think we're
planning on having in September of 2005, but for us to qualify for the State loan program we
have to meet the general obligation statute and by combining these three projects that allows us
to do that. I think Roger has also had some conversations with Mary Ippel regarding the
consolidation of those three projects. Roger?
2