##VIDEO ID:IIO6yooVTUs## O'Brien nine present zero absent stand for the pledge of Alle pledge United States stand naice proposed additions deletions to the agenda or motion to approve motion to approve the agenda second I got a motion a second discussion being none roll call council member o i Nelson I Davis hi sches hi pagerly hi osmus I Butterfield I and O'Brien I eight eyes zero nose we'll go toh consent items call on ver Larson city clerk mayor ree council members tonight I have for your approval the city council minutes of September 3rd 24 city council work session minutes of August 28th 24 the police Civil Service Commission minutes of July 17 24 Municipal Utilities commission meeting minutes of September 99th 24 approve settlement and release agreements the City versus newow consideration of resolution declaring Surplus equipment and authorizing sale at public auction preliminary and final plat approval for the fairground section addition preliminary and final plat approval for gir's addition consideration of a Sunday liquor license and consideration of State temporary permit for veni Lutheran Church and the accounts payable report for 8 2924 through 91124 and for your information tonight I have the monthly permit reports for August of 24 the director's reports and the K KC letter to councel motion to approve the consent agenda second okay we got a motion in a second to approve the consent agenda any discussion Rick thanks Mr Mayor um just on item J consideration of the state temporary liquor permit for bji Lutheran Church is that to help the lus go down better or pretty offensive otherwise all right I prove that so all right roll call oh I'm sorry I I just have a comment um g& H we are being asked to approve the preliminary and final plat and there were no minutes from the Planning Commission um with that I understand them but it just would be nice to be able to get the minutes to review and the comments that were made on them so it's just a comment I'm okay okay roll call council member Nelson hi Davis hi sches hi ply hi osas hi Butterfield hi O'Brien I an o i eight eyes zero NOS that passes next is the uh open form and uh I'll call on we've got four people wishing to speak I'll call on you individually but then I would appreciate if you give your name your address and you have 3 minute limit so first I'll call on Nancy street I'm sure you all know why I'm calling or I'm here sent you many emails um I'm tired of the runaround to get my G grass restored you've gone on you moved up to Pro projects you look at how you finish the other properties in my area that are businesses and we get crap I had to fight to get my driveway completed for the winter or else I wouldn't have had access I had to fight to get holes filled in from the gas company because Bolton marked them as completed I had to fight to get a pole removed from bide my driveway because they had marked it as completed and the gas company wouldn't come out to remove it I listen to them when they did do my driveway and they did it wrong and the guy head guy said oh just leave it she won't see it I'm standing 10 feet above their head on my deck and then he realizes I'm standing there and they come back the next day and redo it this is enough it shouldn't have to be a battle to get your yard complete I'm having work done this Saturday on stuff I've been putting off and I'm telling you right now it butts up right against where your problem is I get my work done and if you come in and mess up my work you're paying for it and you're paying for it by who I say will Fair Repair it you understand that because that's what's going to happen because I've had enough of fighting with you guys to get this done all right next is Jean Langan I'm Jean Lang and um I came to live in Wilmer because I have two boys that live up here and they live on Grace Avenue and they are handicapped and they have been assess 15,000 we'd like to know where they're going to get the money they worked out at candyl recycling and that clothes they haven't worked they work two days two hours each day out at Runnings in order to keep their insurance and that's the only income they have one of them is 65 and the other one is going to be oh I think he's 62 or something like that but I don't know what we're going to do and that street needed to be fixed when they moved into that house 30 years ago because my husband and I commented on what terrible streets Wilmer had compared to where I am originally Lamberton Minnesota and they do their streets every five years but I don't know what we're going to do and we try to explain this to the boys the one understands it but the one just says well I don't know I'm not moving and I said no you're not moving your house is paid for and it's your house no one can take it from you this is upsetting Dennis schaer good evening mayor e City Council Members my name is Dennis shaow and I live at 1436 Grace Avenue Southwest um it has been brought to my attention that the Wilmer City staff will be recommending the dismissal of the original Street assessment objective letters presented at the August 19th meeting based upon City policy two years ago similar objective letters were presented to the city council from Property Owners living along 6th Street Southwest a friend of ours who lives along the street had the dollar amount of the special Street assessment reduced has there been a change in the city policy regarding this subject since then it may be worth asking City staff so I guess the question is why did our objection letters not meet City policy standards but those in two years ago did thank you next Justin matter thank you my name is Justin murn from 13th Street Southwest mayor re and Council members thank you for taking the time to consider the objections of homeowners regarding the 2024 Street assessments it was clear at the August 19th meeting that numerous questions about the assessment amounts and its procedure continue to persist among the public and within the council itself having the opportunity to meet with engineering staff and several council members for further conversation has raised even further questions I believe that now is the time to finally make a change to a broken policy included with this letter is a list of questions that still remain or have come to light since the assessment heing as well as a springboard of possible ideas to be considered for corrective action I hope that these questions concerns and ideas will be viewed not as rhetorical but rather would unite both councel and staff in a serious effort to bring forth a variety of options that could be considered to reduce assessments while still providing cash Revenue to cover the costs of these much needed Street improvements my ask Remains the Same as the original objection stated a 33% reduction in the proposed assessment amounts for those who have objected and a future restructuring of how assessments are calculated and handled these requests are based on violation of State Statute requirements which prohibit exceeding property benefit amounts and the misappropriation of outside funding sources which ought to reduce assessment amounts segmented below are some suggestions followed by a list of inquiries and concerns such as the mysterious $4 a month utility Improvement charge that I hope Council will seek to resolve before taking further action addition additionally I would add that I recognize that Wilmer struggle with special assessments is neither unique nor is it new I encourage the city to look at how other communities have been able to find success in reducing or in other cases eliminating Street assessments by raising dedicated funds through other means city the city could offset assessment amounts by 50 to 75% and at the same time realize long-term savings by paying more cash upfront and bonding for lesser amounts for example this year's Street reconstruction projects total $1.4 Million worth of Assessments raising $100,000 of dedicated Revenue could cut these assessment amounts in half perhaps a hybrid of ideas could be combined to achieve a successful solution so again I thank the council I hope that tonight um as you're able to have this discussion later that you would review the additional uh information I think I provided two or three pages of possible ideas and additional questions that I do have that uh I hope Council will take a look at thank you all right um we'll go to regular business and uh call on David early from West bations for the audit for 2023 mayor yes um I know we don't normally um respond to U open Forum questions but um Mr scha brought up about that the letters can we get a clarification on the the if the letters were not accepted I was not aware of that what he was referring to on the assessments I think that'll all be addressed in the next item okay okay thank you okay Julie go ahead sorry thank you mayor and members happy to be here tonight to give you just a brief presentation of the uh the audit the 2023 first item I need would like to go over just briefly is the governance letter there's just a few things in here that I'd like to just highlight uh in the first paragraph under significant audit matters uh there was an accounting policy change that you had to adopt that related to um new Enterprise or Erp system he implemented uh it didn't result in a big change in how you do things but I just wanted to point out that you were subject to a new audit standard um the other one I'd like to look at is the uh line that a difficulties encountered uh for performing the audit we didn't have any significant issues with any people everyone was very Cooperative answered our questions and provided the information we had um really the the main challenge we had was just learning the new system system and just what it took to kind of reconcile the old and the new outside of that no real issues on that otherwise there I have a a few graphs just to kind of go over quickly um the first one here we're just showing a little bit of a trend for your general fund and capital and Improvement fund every year your budget has had a deficit as you planned because you wanted to spend down your fund balances a little bit uh you actually ended the year uh significantly low on your general fund um you know according to your policy that you've adopted the minimum fund balance shouldn't go below $7 million and it actually went down to 6.2 million for the end of the year U and so um obviously that's something that you you Tred to avoid because you know you set the policy in place for a reason and so forth but um and part of that too is just that you know the general fund had a significant uh overage as far as the budget so that did result in you dipping below what you typically would would have so uh the next slide just shows the trend on your community investment fund you know the community investment fund is a very vital to what you're doing as far as helping you fund projects and so forth uh at end of the year at 11.8 million compared to 11.5 uh and a lot of that had to do with the Investments did so much better in 23 compared to 22 uh I believe you had about a $300,000 gain just in the change in Fair market so again that that fund looks very strong and like I said provides good funding for what you need for your future projects local option sales tax obviously is an important fund for you guys also um you know it's it's helping pay for the bonds that you've issued for all the projects that have been undertaken so far uh as you can see the fund balance uh increase from 6.2 to $6.9 million um and and part of that is you know you still have projects to complete and uh and you're essentially are collecting roughly you know $3 million of Revenue and your bond payments are about 1.9 so at this point you're in a position where you are increasing that fund balance um but again I know you have additional projects that you do plan on completing and that you will require uh issuing additional debt but at this point it's obviously in a good position uh summary of uh your debt activity for 2023 uh overall your debt increase by 5.7 million uh you had issued 8.37 million Bonds in 23 uh which led to the increase uh but overall uh um one overall you know your your debt level you are maintaining a a not a bad debt level obviously because most of these are paid by by special assessments and not strictly by property taxes and also your community investment fund helps you pay for some of those things so uh one thing I did want to point out on the 22 Bond you actually didn't have any principal payments due in 23 but that was and that was just by Design as far as just for cash flow purposes and then another important fund for you is the waste treatment fund uh overall you know it's it's generating sufficient income for you uh the big thing about your waste treatment fund uh in 2025 your bond payments will actually go up significantly for about five years and I I know you are doing a rate study uh because if you look at Revenue the revenue is pretty stable but as you see each year your operating costs are increasing uh so I think it is appropriate to do the rate study to determine what you need to do on that uh but even so um you do still had you still have about $12.6 million cash in Investments so I mean you are way ahead as far as taking on that additional debt load and part of that is due to because you had a $7 million bond that was delayed payments and that was by Design and there was no interest on that so uh quick snapshot of of your Investments uh Investments ended the year at 53 million compared to 48 um and uh the the market overall was actually more favorable in 23 so you actually had a $1.4 million increased in thir market value compared to 22 which was a little more difficult and had $3.1 million loss and those are just losses essentially on paper because for the most part you hang on to your investment still maturity so you don't actually recognize that loss but uh for accounting purposes you do have to put that in your financial statements and recognize that and then the last item I have is just a brief summary of some of the Departments that has some budget overages um the uh some of the more significant ones like the legal fees uh were over 159,000 um and that and that actually has been over budget like the last couple years uh but I do know that in 2024 you did increase your budget because uh it does seem like you're you weren't quite budgeting enough on that side of things uh the police department was oversign significant um and and part of that was um you know payroll related costs or over 300 ,000 than you had anticipated um and and I know that's another fund that is always just a little bit over as far as payroll type stuff um but I do know in 2024 again you did increase your budget which is probably more realistic for what your needs really are on that side of things so U and then public works also was over budget a little bit part of that was payroll related but also you had taken on additional seal coding projects were which were almost 400,000 which I think were about 200,000 that you had originally planned on that side of things so and then uh the park and wreck was over again payroll related and part of that is you know your your operations have expanded with all the new facilities you have and so you have added additional people and there again I know that's a a department that you have increased the budget because you recognize the the increase in just the normal operating cost so um any comments or questions for me doesn't look like it David well happy you ever have um I uh like I said I think the audit went pretty good other than just the learning curve on everything I know the finance department is still in process of fully implementing that system and and obviously it will be a great tool for you once it's complet all right that's basically all I have for you all right Audrey yeah just a question if I remember correctly you talked to us about budgets that were over that we should be acknowledging them or doing something during the year versus just being over would you just kind of talk about that a little bit yeah I mean you're you know basically set in Charter the council has the authority to set the budget and they have the authority to allocate the budget between departments and so if a department does go over that should be a council action to acknowledge that or uh or have take some action in terms of saying um we've received this additional Revenue this is how we're covering it or or essentially yeah recognizing at the time or I mean you can't necessarily do things in real time but you know if you're looking at it quarterly sometimes you should be able to make some adjustments on that sort of thing okay I mean there are some departments that are going over and some go under so um maybe it's just allocating between departments but again that's basically the council that has that authority to do that management administrator and so forth do not have that ability to do that without your authorization any other questions otherwise I'm looking for a motion to accept the 2023 audit well moved second I got a motion and a second discussion seeing none roll call council member Davis Hi shers I Bly I osmus I Butterfield I O'Brien i o i Nelson i a eight eyes zero nose thank you David that passes next I'll call on our city engineer Jared GOI uh in regards to the 2024 assessment role evening mayor and Council uh in your packets this evening couple things um there is a resolution but there's also a memo that describes all the assessment objections that received uh when the hearing was held in August and as part of the process I'll go through each of the objections um and certainly part of the requirement is that Council acts on the objections right so um I can we can go I plan to go one by one if that's all right with Council and then we'll we'll go through those and then there is a uh resolution in your packets this evening and we'll have to make any adjustments Council does as we go through ay um before we go through the objections I think there's just some general general questions and um I know Leslie did did you bring copies of Justin's um email it to me it would be helpful for us to resolve some of the the just general questions before we go through the objections sure mayor I have one question before we start yes Mike we had people talk about disability issues um what exactly are were are we at with those can we help those individuals with this disability issue there's a deferment option in the assessment policy that if an individual can go to City Hall and and if they qualify for that that's definitely an option for them you know if they've done that or can we help them do that or what's the situation I am not sure what the individual situations are but uh similar to as we described in August any Resident um interested in a deferment can go to City Hall fill out the information there's some criteria associated with the deferment requirements they can fill out the information and then it can be evaluated to determine whether or not they're eligible so anybody that has that question um I would encourage encourage them to to do so yes Tom just all up on that is there a date timeline that they need to be in nearby fill this out or is it passed or is it still open I know I believe it's at any point however um and I might defer to other staff but I believe it's prior to November 1st they would need to uh be at City Hall so if that's something that there that's being contemplated uh certainly by no November 1st they should uh investigate that I can add to that if they get their application for deferment and it's approved after the assessment R has been sent over to the county it will be added to the next year's assessment so that's why we ask that they get their deferment application in before then so that it can be acknowledged by the council and approved and then it would keep it from being rolled into the assessment rule for 2025 onto their property tax um my first question is about the overall percentage that there had been a comment that it was at 26% but if I understand correctly what you're saying is that I know that our bonds require 20% the bonds that we did this year require 20% is what is our percentage this year is it 20.3 or what is it yes it is 20.3 um that is in one of the um individual assessment objections that we'll be going through a little bit later after y so 20.3 of the total project cost I believe the com comment was made about a couple years ago that we lowered the percentage down to close to 20 is what we did in on Sixth Street if I remember correctly yes that's correct there was an assessment hearing um council at that time decided to reduce the assessments to approximately 20% which is where um they have been since that time yes Justin um a couple people have talked about the um the $4 month utility Improvement charge that um the Municipal Utilities collects what happens with those dollars uh those dollars are allocated toward the community investment fund and please jump in if I'm speaking at of turn or Kyle if you want to take this thank you Council so the the $4 utility charge um is a transfer from waste or excuse me Wilmer Municipal Utilities to the Wastewater Reserve fund and ultimately it does end up in the community investment fund to pay for improvement projects can you explain how that happens that's not a like how does that improve yeah well I understand how the transfer happens I'm saying like what you're saying that it It ultimately gets used for improvement projects towards Bond payments towards Bond payments right so walk me through how that would happen for instance for for residents uh who have just seen their Road worked on this this year they've been paying this $4 fee every month goes to utilities it gets transferred sure for so four specific for the 2024 projects that ultimately that transfer happens ends up in the community investment fund it goes towards overall project total cost would would ultimately lower the assessed amount or project amount as you remember the council did approve bonding for Wastewater projects this year so instead of using the cash uh we wanted to make sure we had enough cash in the Wastewater Reserve fund uh to help make sure we it was mentioned earlier was the in inreased in bond pay or Bond payment starting in 2025 um so in a roundabout way there ultimately those funds are used to pay for towards Bond payments or towards project costs um out of the community investment fund those are paining towards like Wastewater projects or not necessarily like the utilities associated with Street improvements yes uh so it' be towards the the Wastewater portions of the projects can be anything underground not above ground maybe say it that way if that helps simplify it but as I'm looking at some of the math that's been provided for for you know the total cost of this project and the assessments I'm not seeing at any point like minus X number of dollars from right I I need to look at that a little close closer I don't have the exact breakout in front of me or tonight um but a lot of it has to do with how we bonded for the projects this year for Wastewater we're not paying for them with cash because we want to make sure the city has cash in hand for those balloon payments when the bonds when those Bond payments increase in 2025 so there might not be a specific decrease or identified decrease of the 425,000 out of the community investment fund wastewater treatment reserve for that transfer um but overall historically those funds have been used to pay towards Bond payments for projects um okay we can dig and absolutely get a more clearcut answer for you if you have any additional questions I don't have any addition more additional questions but I imagine other of my colleagues on the the bond rate of 20.3 that we have to have what happened if a few people pay in you know we pull them out before that is that going to affect it if we you know a few people people pay in and we're not at that 20.3% um if I'm understanding the question correctly people definitely do have the opportunity to pay their Assessments in advance with no interest occurred so that does assuming Council adops assessment role as um as it is or or nearly what it is um those assessments will be approved so at that point the 20% is met okay and then so somebody you know pays it all up it's not going to effectively we will go on okay because I believe in two years ago it was at 25 and we lowered it down to 22 and that was one of the concerns you know too many people would prepay it because uh the interest rate so I was just a little confused on that thank you audre so there were questions about whether we were using the correct figures and to review the bids when we approved the bids I think it was in April or somewhere are those the figures they they're the exact figures that are in this along with engineering cost and what what else is added on to yeah so the total project cost consists of the construction cost which is the work going on out in the in the community um administrative testing engineering and uh legal costs associated with the project so um when you add those components together for those projects the total project amount is the 11 million 11665 million if you looked at the bid itself that we approved in April it matches what's on these figures for the bid um for the most part yes I mean and what I mean by that is we've had construction going on for a couple of months so we know that the what the bid prices are we know where construction is all the projects are trending right at the construction bid prices so I mean they're not going to be identical to the penny but yes it's based on the um bids that we received for the project yes okay the Wilmer Avenue project is a county project County lead County lead project okay and so um there are different funds available that fund those County projects or the state funding or those types of things but the city still charges assessments based off of the same formula that we do if we were doing the street is am I correct that's correct because the city still has costs associated with those roads even though they're officially County roads but we basically use the same formula even though we're not paying all the costs the assessment for Mill and overlay projects on a County Road or a city street is identical okay thank you I know we've talked about this before but I keep looking at other communities especially the counties and what are they doing to help pay for these assessments and one of the things that that jumped out at me that I have checked rechecked and rechecked and I know people hate taxes but somehow we got to all start paying for these roads and I think the wheel tax may be the answer and I know there's no States no cities in the state that are doing it at this time but it's legal according to statute that I've read more than once and people that I've talked to the wheel tax in fact is legal um is it a big tax not really but will it help because everybody that's on those roads will help pay for those roads and and that's one of the things the county does I have a question on that because Robert can I I was on the County Board when the Wheeling tax came on and I thought the city couldn't do it Robert what do you got first us uh we have looked into this extensively since the council meeting in August um what we knew at that point was there is a statute clearly says cities May adopt a wheelage tax it is very sparse in terms of the details it has some parameters that are um challenging to interpret what they would mean today but since the last meeting we've uh engaged with the state I think we have stumped a couple different state agencies the Department of Transportation I shouldn't say stumped but they were unaware that this statute existed that this Authority existed they could point to no examples of cities that have adopted them but the fact remains there is a statute that says the city has the authority to adopt a wheelage tax and for a city of Wilmer size it has the authority to do so without first having a referendum um there again are some parameters it looks like the city would be limited to a percentage of an equivalent tax that the state imposes but um I think the takeaway from our office is yes as council member O'Brien stated the statute exists The Authority exists there are likely to be some serious implementation challenges if the city were to go down this road what I mean by that is for the county who have uh adopted wheelage taxes there's a clear statutory uh process for the state to collect the tax in connection with everybody's vehicle registration process and distribute the proceeds to the counties that have adopted the tax and none of that uh Authority or process or infrastructure is set up for a city tax so we would likely need to try and work out some sort of arrangement with the state before this city would go to the trouble of adopting it because it's going to be a really challenging tax to collect otherwise so with all that said yes the legal answer is the statute says the city can adopt this tax and uh if the council at some point wishes to explore that then there's going to be uh I think a significant amount of work to engage with the state to try and make that happen and come up with a process that would work to collect the taxes and get it back to the city you have any anything more Mike no it's just that like I say I mean I I drive on all the roads and why should everybody that live on that street have to pay be the only ones that pay for the the you know the upkeep if I drive on the roads if these trucks coming in the city are driving on all these roads everybody should pay and that's one way they do it that's one way I check with the different counties and that's the way they do it one of the ways they do it but there's there's got to be a way to help out with these assessments Justin give me a minute go ahead and call in well I think Julie wanted to speak so I'll go to Julie then and then we'll come back I still need some clarification on the Wilmer Avenue um Road and when we um share that project with the county what um what and I and it says that we collect it for the county but how much does the county pay and why isn't that less than for the residents of Wilmer Avenue so none of the assessments are for the county so they're entirely City assessments um in terms of the total amount I don't have that in front of me but um similar to the the previous question the county roads and city streets that are Mill and overlaid are the assessment policy is the same for both um and the city does have costs associated with the county roads for example the storm sewer catch basins curb um so it's it's the county Le project City funds required for the city components of the project and that doesn't just stop stop when the project is being constructed that's through the life of that Corridor so y I've got Carl and then Audrey and then Tom so Carl so I'd like to go back to that utility Improvement charge so if I heard you right anything underground that that $4 charge goes for anything underground essentially yes and so for this year we approved a bond so it's not that that money is being bonded and that $4 doll charge is going to the Wastewater to help pay those bonds then or what's still going to the community investment fund is was the intent of that charge to be used specifically on sewer upgrades Wastewater upgrades and and wondering if are we using it properly sure we believe um I had a conversation with staff today um I think way back when there was an ordinance adopted by Council on how that process and how proceedings for that utility charge were laid out um between late this afternoon tonight's meeting I did not have an opportunity to find that specific ordinance but historically that is how that fund has been used is to aay for projects in the community investment fund the council recalls historically as well uh the community investment fund is how Street projects were paid for bonded for to 2022 um So currently on the on the books for the city is our street Improvement or bonds from 2016 to 2021 those projects are funded through the community investment f that take in assessments bonding utility service charge other revenue streams to help offset those projects we got to a point again just to elaborate a little further as we moved on and the council took action to ramp up the street improvements throughout the city of Wilmer the viability of that fund to continue funding Street projects um at that at certain levels was not viable any longer so we moved to the that service or the the process that we've been using the last three years to fund those projects so there are still obligations to that fund uh we saw in the tonight presentation at the end of 2023 there was a little over $1 million in there uh those funds for in most part are spoken for and are obligated for other projects uh so those funds are you being that utility service charge continues to be used for uh maintenance or Bond payments or other utility projects at the city I'm trying to remember oh go ahead I was just gonna follow up with it it in place of a a wheelage tax it might be easier to increase that fee a little bit um double it to $8 a month uh and dedicate that specifically to lower assessments in the future moving forward that I think that's a very reasonable request um way that we can help it's certainly not going to drop things down uh significantly for a lot of people but it's going to help and if you know if uh you can raise another $42 500,000 um rather than trying to implement a wheelage tax which sounds very complicated maybe this is another way we can do that I uh i' I've been sitting here thinking about trying to recall the action that the council took when they initiated the utility Improvement charge Rick and I were on the council um I think that was for sewer and water water lines and sewer and it started out at $2 a month and it wasn't meeting the needs and we raised it to 4 those supp to pay specifically for water and sewer lines that were replace you know I did mention since we got the gas franchise to you at 600 something thousand I wanted that dedicated just for street produ I was told that should go into the general funds we have an option we could use that just for Audrey um my request on on that one was that we don't make that decision until we deal with our budget with how we're going to balance our budget Etc um with that so um I just two things but um there are lots of cities that have been lobbying to be able to do the same thing that the county does and to charge a half percent sales tax to do streets Etc and that was discussed at the at the legislature this last year and I would encourage us to think about lobbying to do that that that would be another source of Revenue um the people who drive on the streets the people who buy it's just the the same same thing and that's how the county is doing you know doing some of that and I don't know why um City shouldn't be allowed to do this that same thing as a way to help fund streets but um my actual question was the concern about whether we're meeting the parameters of does someone's value of their home really go up by the amount of the assessments and that challenge I've seen multiple documents of State documents and you know the league has a document out there and that that you can't assess more than what the value and I know that's subjective but are we exposed to some of the figures that are out there it's hard to believe that their property values are going up by 15 17 $20,000 um is that something that we should be concerned about uh thanks council member Nelson this a similar similar question came up last year when the assessments were being discussed and ultimately we know that the improvements are a benefit to the properties um as your engineer I'm not going to get into any type of real estate projections or anything like that I I because I can't um but as it was discussed uh with staff we're confident that there is a benefit to the property so the specific amount um is subjective I wish I could give you yes or no uh because I think that's what we're looking for here but I I can't do that I mean we're confident that there's a benefit um and to the extent I think it could be argued both ways is the city required to be able to prove that I can thanks Robert what the law says is you're correct about the special benefit that's measured by the market value increase to the value of the property attributable to the project but the law does not require because the way you prove that right is by an appraiser uh expert appraiser appraising the value of the property before the project and then doing the thing to get an after value after the project is completed the law does not require that should do an appraisal on the front end before uh imposing or calculating or approving the final assessments the law is clear that having a assessment policy in place that uh is uniform and application across similar classes of property in the community uh and determines a value for the Improvement on a front footage basis is legal it's presumed legal if anyone were to um appeal the assessment to District Court uh the city would enter that proceeding with the presumption that its assessment was valid as long as it followed its assessment policy which is uh the conclusion of the memo before you which is that these assessments did and then it would be up to the party challenging the assessment to produce evidence probably in the form of an appraisal uh to say that no the value was or the benefit value was less than the amount we were assessed and then the city likely would need to get his own assessment in order to resolve that issue in litigation L okay I've got Tom Vicky Justin so Tom I have two questions so my second one go after Justin if that's all right what's that I said I had two questions my first one I'll ask now and my second one I'll wait till after Justin okay piggy backing on the Wilmer Avenue when was last time Wilmer Avenue was Miler overlay or redone it been over the 20 years um I recall if I recall correctly it was late '90s early 2000s somewhere in there I'm not exactly sure we could probably look that up pretty easily we should probably look that up because if it's you know on that 20 year mark you know being redone then we have to recalculate that I think on yeah all so to I appreciate that clarification um so all these assessments were verified that they were not assessed within that that previous period we had a couple residents that were on side streets um and things like that so that was all reviewed as part of the assessment role which is in in your packets yes Vicki um well Audrey addressed one of my questions but I also think we should look into the half cent sales tax and I wonder if there's a way to kind of see how we can do that right now we can't do that because the half sales sales tax requires legislative action and we already have a half cent sales tax on the books right now for all the recreational facilities and storm sewer and such and that doesn't go off until another 10 years no nine nine or eight years so we can ask the legislators at that time and right now there's a moratorium at the legislation so that for 2025 ask or anything they probably wouldn't do anything J next um I don't have any questions I want to make some philosophical comments so you can rest a little bit I won't have any tough questions for you um I think that we have made in the last this like last year and maybe even the last couple years we've made some improvements in communication with residents I think Jared your team has done a good job of of forecasting what those projects are being clear about what they can expect holding open houses inviting people into conversations um and so I feel confident that if we can improve communication we can also improve our transparency and I think that's a struggle right now I think um we've heard from multiple residents who've tried to get access to assessment roles and have been turned away um who have tried to get information from City staff and have been frustrated and I don't think they've ever gotten some of it um I mean I think uh Mr M's uh you know with his experi on the on the Utility Board is is is a government Insider at the local level and the amount of time he had to invest to get the information that he has which is still incomplete I think from what he's looking for uh is unfortunate and we can do better um I think it would be great if everyone can understand this is the total cost of the project here's where uh the grant that we got factors into it here's where the utility Improvement charge might factor into it uh and here's the total cost that we're accessing uh to the residents who live on the street we can do a better job on transparency the other thing I just want to say is I think we can do a better job on the policy overall moving forward I think the policy worked for a really long time I think the policy worked up until construction cost skyrocketed and we're now giving residents bills which follow the policy but are are larger than we've ever seen before and did the cost of the road was that larger the city's seen larger Road costs than we've ever seen before too so it's all understandable but I agree with council member FES we have to do something different and maybe you know doubling that utility fee uh in and pointing directly at Street projects and being able to show our residents here's where your eight8 $10 a month of utility fee this is where it's benefiting you this is where it's going so that assessments aren't going to disappear but they're going to come back into that more reasonable rate where you can afford to to pay stre assessments when it comes your turn every every 30 years um so those are my pH opical comments right Tom and then Audrey you know it was brought up a few times about a couple years ago with charlot Street us lowering it uh if we would do that brought it down to what we P you know charged for Charlotte a couple years ago how would the city come up with the extra money this is more towards you know Leslie and City staff how could we come up with that money difference of what the homeowners would PID to what city would have to pay to keep us in that Bond of the 20 20.3% I think Robert should answer it comes down to a legal question because under the bonding you when we went to the bond Council we said we would assess 20% and that's what the bond State and that's what we have done and that's what the cost comes up to 20 .3% that's rounding air you know rounding for L footage and things like that so I don't know legally if we can say we're going to pay less than our residents are going to be assessed less than 20% okay because that's the bond that's that's what the city agreed to when Bond Council was here Baker Tilly our financial people have looked at it our city Engineers looked at it Kennedy and Graven our bond Council has looked at it and they look at what the project costs are and that's why they let us Bond what we did well I'm just trying to think you know because inflation is so high uh I voted no for this past budget I wasn't comfortable with raising people's taxes now here we are again at assessment hearing where people are complaining about the high taxes uh we put more money in the roads last year off of this budget too but I I don't know how we're going to please some of these people I I think the prices are are too high for some of these property values that are out there that was like two years ago and previous week we need to do something you know we give uh tiffs to business owners building uh apartment buildings we got people have been in their homes for 30 40 years been paying taxes and now when they really need the help with the cost of inflation there's nothing the city can do to really help them out and just say well I'm sorry it's too bad when we did to your street that's pric and you know where lows we can go on the bond isn't there any type of money that City could use to help this out Kyle you can jump in if you want to but I would say that right now we're using all the every tool that we have we are using to reduce the assessments now the only thing we can do differently is we can do bonding differently and then that means that whatever if we have a two or3 million Bond then it's got to be paid through taxes because otherwise there is no cash sitting out there that would be used just strictly for the bond payments the community investment fund that started how many many years ago and when the city was making 14 18% interest back in ionomics days that helped fund that but the city was only also doing projects of one1 million or2 million do and that isn't keeping up with our road needs two years ago maybe three years ago 2021 fall of 2021 Jared did a presentation on our road construction needs and it's about 15 million a year to get us up to a 50-year plan we've only been spending about eight not five on average over the last three years and as you see that's what has been increasing our tax levy because our bonds for the 2021 2022 2023 and now 2024 are part of that tax levy increase and that's the 80% of the bonds that we're covering so the community investment fund we tap into that part of that Community Fund as Mr Box had said that's already restricted to the prior bonds from 20206 to 2021 so those are already restricted funds because we have to have those funds to pay for the bonds that we are currently not taxing and then is there any other Reserve fund that we do have out there not that's marked for Street projects all of our funds as as was noted in the budget we said that we have special Revenue funds we have the airport fund that is dedic dedicated to airport needs we have the community investment fund which is dedicated to the bonds that we have out there and we have uh we have smaller funds but we have um every fund that is listed in our audit which everybody can see because our audit is out there those are all dedicated and restricted B funds for that particular fund now if you're going to close those funds and then say Council can do those kind of things but then what are you going to fund use for say the airport fund if you're going to move their money to the general fund years ago you used to have a fund for rack which was the then a separate special Revenue fund and then Council decided no let's just move all that money that we get for the access fees to the general fund so basically the franchise fee we have for the rack goes to the general fund un fortunately that we we don't spend all of that but it's still just in the general fund which just clarification which we use for Capital Improvement and yes we do use it for equipment and we do use it you know Iraq you know if Iraq budget isn't over the $250,000 well we don't get $250,000 anymore we get about 210 so each year that decreases too and you're correct when we first initiated the franchise fee and started rack all the funds stayed in One Fund it was not put in any other yeah and it wasn't just for Capital Improvement it was also the uh Personnel you were funding at the same time through that fund okay Audrey then Rick thank you um I'm finding myself frustrated um but again this is the same we're kind of in the same place we have been for the last couple years and um I think we have to do something about it um I don't believe that the values of the property are going up as much as we're assessing them I have a concern about that um um with that and um I don't know that we have any choices right now we bonded we have to do at least 20% we already are down to 20.3% so we can't lower that that any longer and um you know I I I think we're just we're here and we're stuck again and I think that we need to come up with some suggestions or lobbying to try to come up with some different ways to fund streets and I wasn't talking about local options sales tax I was talking about the County right now can just vote and do a half a percent tax to do roads that same thing was being lobbied for for cities to do separate nothing to do with the local option sales tax there are people who do local option sales tax for streets that's a whole different situation in a different can of worms because that's been shut down this to me is a different kind of opportunity or maybe we need to look at increasing the the the fees for the utilities and dedicating that towards assessments um with that but um I I don't know what else to ask I think we've asked the questions I don't like the answers um but I think we're here and we need to um acknowledge that we're stuck and um acknowledge that if we don't like it we better be doing something between now and next year to do something different Rick I agree but going back to the rack eight we had oh we had the special fund and I remember one year Mickey Schmidt said we needed to do a couple of parking lots downtown so we used part of the rack eight funds for that and I think we were told by our auditor we couldn't have all those special funds so we eliminated a whole bunch of them so but I remember at a time when back in the 60s and70s you lived on a um County state aid Street 7th Street Wilmer Avenue trod Avenue you didn't you weren't assess the county took care of all of that and then the TA or the assessment rate was 60 City 40 residents and it got too high and then it switched and was 40 for the city 60 for the residents and then I think mayor hiy at one time had a special group yeah and then it we were in trouble way back then so on Wilmer Avenue did the county assess not at all they use their we Leach tax or F they don't do that on all their roads so uh it's my belief that the county has not assessed a city resident for any of their projects out in the county they do that I'm not familiar because I know by Eagle Lake there's a short little road on the northeast side they're all being assessed $20,000 no curb and gutter just the new Street Road okay they do assess too Council where are we going are we still going to go down one by one I certainly can yes so if I can just recap from my understanding just off of different people's comments um so when you were talking your percentages Rick so right now we're at 8020 basically City's paying 80 residents are paying 20% 20.3 okay um Tom suggested is there some way that the city can help that we can take some of that away well the obvious question on that the answer on that is if we lower let's say we lower Theirs to 15 well this City's got to pick up the 5% then and then that is going to have to get spread out to all the citizens I mean there's no fund there's no money out there to help any citizen to take off any of the 20.3% correct okay okay so then one possible suggestion is um adding a $4 dollar to the utility fee which then ultimately um would go into the overall cost of the project which would then lessen it we'd have to bond for Less which then changes the amount of the overall assessment to the citizens correct next year next year yeah okay I just want to make sure that everybody understands even though somebody says you know we should help them or we should do this we should do that these are our choices just we we don't have any money to come up with to uh to help alleviate any of that cost the the costs have gone up that's the cost of doing the road even if we lowered let's say we only did like we did 15 years ago we did 1 million in in a street project which got us to where we're at today with not having a lot of Roads done back then um that still doesn't take away the cost what it's going to do that one road maybe that we fix then for 1 million we're still going to have to assess 8020 so that doesn't change any assessment for anybody either if we lower the street projects we're doing correct all right so if I okay thank you um so enclosing your packets this evening is a memo related to all the objections uh that were received at the assessment Hearing in August I'll go through these uh the first one on the list here uh and just by way of reference I have the property owner name that role number is the corresponding number on the assessment role where you can find their original assessment the P ID and then this street addresses and at this point I'll just stick with the street addresses as we move forward with this so the first assessment objection was received from 108 13 Street Southwest there were six items or six items that I've listed in the memo um first one was related to the funding sources that should be utilized to reduce assessments second being um the discussion related to the benefit not the benefit not equaling the increase in the property value of the assessment um there was an indication within that assessment objection that property owners were caught off guard by the assessment amounts uh also requested a reduction in the amount of the assessment and um requested that the city pursue other options to reduce Assessments in the future and then the following additional obors were listed on that objection letter 8816 13 Street Southwest 90113 Street Southwest 109 1016 1021 1101 13th Street Southwest 1209 Grace Avenue 107 13th Street Southwest 1114 Grace Avenue Southwest 820 13th Street Southwest 104 1018 um 13th Street Southwest 9 10 11 Street Southwest 1436 Grace Avenue Southwest 1104 Grace Avenue Southwest and the last signing on that objection was 1208 Grace Avenue Southwest as it relates to the uh first item the funding sources we've identified the funding associated with the improvements which consist of Wilmer Municipal Utilities the local options sales tax and the community invest fund um the second item was related to the benefit to the property value versus the assessment um and ultimately like we've discussed here previously the improvements are a benefit to the property and the assessments have been um calculated in accordance with the city's assessment policy as it relates to Property Owners being caught off guard by the assessment amounts um notices were mailed to each property owner and the public hearings were published in the West Central Tribune the first Improvement hearing was conducted in November of 2023 which would have been this the first notice residents received related to the improvements the notices were also mailed and published in the West Central Tribune for the August 19th 2024 um assessment Hearing in addition to that an open house was held on November 19 2023 for all Property Owners to learn more about the project and as part of that um openhouse and the Improvement hearing an estimated amount of the assessments were provided to to all residents that attended the open house or the public hearing the assessment amount was item number four um the total project cost as we've discussed is 11.66 5 million the total assessment amount is 2, 3 67,900 20.3% of the total project cost uh item five in the objection was relative um to pursuing other um methods for reducing Assessments in the future I think we've discussed them at length tonight um however the assessments included in the assessments roles in the council pack um have been calculated according to the city's existing assessment policy and based on the objections presented and the fact that the improvements are a benefit and they were calculated according to the city's assessment policy the recommendation is that the city assess um the properties objecting in item number one included in this memo um as presented the second item or the second objection that we receiv received that evening was from 1436 Grace Avenue Southwest they objected to the cost of the assessment and again the improvements are a benefit to the property and um have been calculated in accordance with the city's assessment policy and therefore the recommendation is um sure do we have to vote individually on each one of these um you can do them as we go through them sure absolutely or if if you're going to change them then we would need to change the assessment role so we can wait till the end and pick out which ones if any the counselor or have more questions on or want to change or I just wanted to clarify so that we're all on the same page either way is adequate um as uh Mr vogi stated you certainly could take individual actions after uh the presentation on each objection is concluded we also have motion language if you wanted to take them as a uh sort of package uh when we get to the end of the presentation uh if the council is satisfied with the report the council could certainly um dispose of all objections consistent with the memorandum in one motion okay we'll do that did you say all right so the third objection was received from 9113 thce Avenue Southwest the um objection indicated that the assessments were significantly higher than last year and objected to the cost of the assessment so the assessment rates um were included in a table format for the rates from 2023 as well as the corresponding rates for 2024 and you'll note that they depending on the item they're within 3 to 8% of the 2023 assessment rates um and then related to the objection of the cost of the assessment the improvements are a benefit to the property have been calculated with in accordance with this City's assessment policy and we're recommending that these City assess the property as presented in the role fourth objection uh was from 14th Street Southwest uh the resident indicated that they were previously assessed on 14th Street Southwest and objected to the cost of the assessment um this one will require a little bit lengthier um explanation but it's definitely in in the council's um packet this evening so ultimately this particular property is a corner lot and it AB buts uh Grace Avenue Southwest the property was previously assessed on the long side of the lot in 2012 for the street and utility reconstruction on 14th Street Southwest and that assessment amount at the time was $772 455 um the amount used in the previous assessment was 115 feet um and the actual Frontage is 130 feet nonetheless um the 2012 assessment on the long side of the property was based on a 20 or 2005 version of the assessment policy uh the current corner lot policy indicates that for Street reconstruction and storm sewer related items 100% of the short side of the the lot um being assessed and then the long side would be 30% of that long side length the sanitary sewer and water replacement assessment items are assessed at 100% of the length of the property where the sewer and water services um are located so the current assessment is against the 124.5 Ft north side and the adjusted front footage for the street reconstruction storm sewer related items is 124.5 Ft there are no sanitary sewer or water main assessments on the property since it is serviced from 14th Street uh Southwest as a result of all of the analysis related to that um the improvements are a benefit to the property and they have been um assessed in accordance with City's existing assessment policy and are recom and staff is recommending no change to um that assessment the next objection is from 128 Grace Avenue Southwest uh first part of that objection related to the removal of trees along the project area the second part was related to the cost of the assessment and then the third part indicated uh financial hardship related to the trees the trees were removed um because they were in conflict with the improvements the cost of the assessments um the improvements are a benefit to the property and we the assessments were calculated in accordance with the city's assessment policy and we recommend that they be assessed as presented and then lastly relative to the financial hardship uh if the property owner qualifies they can certainly go to um city hall and fill out the paperwork provide the documentation as we've discussed previously um and if they meet the requirements of a deferment um that can be that can be incorporated into the uh assessment role if the application is completed prior to November 1st next assessment objection was from 1104 Grace Avenue Southwest also referenced the removal of trees from the project area and the cost of the assessment the trees were removed because they were in conflict with the improvements and then as it relates to the cost of the assessment the improvements are a benefit to the property they were calculated in accordance with the existing assessment policy and it is recommended that the city assess the property as presented next objection was from 121 Grace Avenue Southwest um resident voiced complaints about access during construction and then objected to the cost of the assessment as it relates to access was definitely difficult during construction um as it relates to the cost of the assessment uh they are benefit to the property and were calculated in accordance with the city's assessment policy and it is recommended that they be PR assessed as presented next objection was from 7121 13 Street Southwest the resident asked if the assessments for the project were being levied to fund School improvements and then also objected to the cost of the assessment the first one relative to the funding School improvements the assessments are not levied to fund School improvements they are strictly utilized by the city um as it relates to payment for the project and the school was also assessed as part of the improvements as it relates to the cost of the assessment the improvements are benefit to the property were calculated in accordance with the city's assessment policy and we're recommending that they be adopted as presented next objection was from 73013 Street Southwest the resident objected to length Us in the assessment calculation resident believed that it should be 25 feet or 30 feet and then also objected to the um cost of the assessment this one also is a corner lot and as previously stated 100% of the short side is assessed and then 30% of the long side sanitary sewer and water replacement assessments are assessed at 100% of the length where the sewer and water um connections are located along the property's footage um this particular property abuts the project on the east side of it um there is 50 feet on the east side which would be the short side 150 ft on the south side which is long and the adjusted front footage for the street reconstruction and storm sewer related items is 50 feet and the adjusted front footage used for the water me is 50 feet there's no sewer assessment included in this one um because the property is serviced from cant de ohigh Avenue the cost of the assessment um one thing that we did want to go through here so the the mailed assessment amount included an amount for sanitary sewer assessment items and between the time the assessment notice was sent out and the hearing in August the contractor was working in the area and we were made aware the property was serviced from Candy Ohio Avenue outside of the construction limits so the sanitary sewer and service items we were recommending be removed from the assessment which results in a reduction in the amount of $1,632 so the revised assess mment amount for this particular property that we're we're recommending is $597 of50 C so this is the first change to the assessment role that um staff is recommending as it relates to the construction next objection was from a property owner that owns two properties the first being 8203 Street Southwest and the second being 1220 Grace Southwest uh the first question from the resident was requesting confirmation that the individuals that signed Mr M's OB assessment objection letter um qualified as a formal objection and then secondly the objecting to the cost of the assessment um City attorney has confirmed that by signing the objection letter um that does qualify under the statute as an objection and then as it relates to the cost of the assessment the improvements were assessed the improvements are a benefit to the property and were assessed according to the city's assessment policy and we're recommending that they be assessed as presented next objection was from 1459 Grace Avenue Southwest there are a number of components associated with this one the first being that um resident indicated that they did not receive mailed notice of the hearing and and ultimately notices were mailed to each property owner published in the West Central Tribune um for the assessment hearing second one is related to the uh concern about access to the assessment role um the assessment roles are available on the um Council packets and at City Hall um so those are available the method the third objection was related to the assessing for sanitary sewer water me and services and through the 429 statute is how the how the city and other municipalities obtain Authority uh to assess for those improvements and the assessments for that those utilities sanitary sewer watering um are based on the city's current assessment policy next objection was related to the front footage length used for the assessment calculations the property is an irregular shaped lot and ultimately what that means is the front length and the back length are averaged and that is how the accessible footage is determined which is 118 ft um for this property the next one was related was an inquiry as to why the use of meter fees are not used to fund improvements um the city as we've discussed previously this evening City uses multiple other um sources to fund the improvements which include um utility fees the next objection within uh 1459 Grace Avenue Southwest objection was related that the assessment policy was being unfairly the unfairly levied uh the assessments have been calculated according to the city's assessment policy the next objection was related to the 20% assessment of the bond requirements and the 429 bonds utilized to finance your improvements do require that 20% of the Improvement cost be assessed uh against the benefiting property owner against the benefiting property properties to pay for the bonds and then the last objection uh for that from that Resident was the objection related to the benefit received from the property from the Improvement and the cost of the assessment and as indicated previously with similar objections the improvements are a benefit to the property they were calculated in accordance with the city's assessment policy and it is recommended that they be assessed as presented next objection was from 826 13th Street Southwest objecting to the cost of the assessment and also indicating a financial hardship similarly um to similar objections the improvements are benefit to the property they were assessed in accordance with the city's assessment policy and we are recommending that they be assessed as presented as it relates to the hardship uh if the property owner does qualify for deferred assessments um in accordance with the city's assessment policy would encourage them to stop down at City Hall and pursue that um prior to November 1st the next item are or the next objection is from Wilmer Avenue that address is 1106 Wilmer Avenue Southwest that Resident objected to the cost of the assessment and we're recommending that the city assess the property as presented since the improvements are a benefit to the property and were calculated according to the city's existing assessment policy next objection 1214 Wilmer Avenue Southeast indicated that they did not receive the Noti on notice on the Improvement and objected to the cost of the assessment uh the notices were mailed to Property Owners uh for the assessment hearing held on August 19th 2024 as well as the Improvement hearing held on November 20th 2023 uh the improvements are a benefit to the property were calculated according to the city's existing assessment policy and it is recommended that they be assessed as presented next or the next objection 1210 Wilmer Avenue Southeast this individual objected to the project and objected to the cost of the assessment um as it relates to the the project the project was reviewed and determined to be in need of a Mill and overlay Improvement to preserve the life of the road and prevent a more costly improvements such as reconstruction um the project also includes the replacement of structurally deficient curb and sidewalk driveway aprons and storm sewer castings also required Rehabilitation as part of the Improvement as it relates to the objection for the cost of the assessment improvements are a benefit to the property were calculated according to the city's existing assessment policy and it is recommended that they be assessed as presented next objection is from 1210 Wilmer Avenue Southwest uh indicating that work was done to a pedestrian ramp and sidewalk and the Improvement has caused additional work for the the homeowners as it relates to Grass repair and cleanup and also objected to the cost of assessment um some sidewalk improvements were completed as part of ADA improvements associated with with the project along with the street resurfacing the removal of concrete uh required that additional Turf uh be disturbed also with the improvements and that Turf is not the responsibility of the property owner to take care of that will be taken care of as part of the project and the contractor um working on the project as it relates to the objection to the cost the improvements are benefit to the property calculated in accordance with the city's assessment policy and it is recommended that they be assessed as presented next objection 1029 Wilmer Avenue Southwest um indicates that the cost of the assessment is more than what it would have cost her to replace her driveway apron and also provided an estimate for that and objected to the cost of the assessment the Improvement in the associated assessments include both the concrete um surfacing and other improvements completed as part of the Improvement not solely um concrete driveway aprons and then the um improvements as it relates to the cost of the assessment the improvements are benefit to the property were calculated according to the city's assessment policy and it is recommended that they be assessed as presented next objection is from 1219 Street Southeast objected to the cost of the assessment and um the improvements are benefit to the property are calculated according to the city's assessment policy and it is recommended that they be pre assessed as presented um next item 1401 Wilmer Avenue Southwest indicated that they did not receive a new driveway apron with the Improvement and is requesting a reduction in the assessment amount and objecting to the cost of the assessment since it is a Mill and overlay project um structurally deficient concrete whether it be concrete gutter or driveway aprons um were replaced not all of it was replaced throughout the project area storm sewer castings were also rehabilitated and as it relates to the cost of the assessment the improvements are a benefit to the property we're calculated according to the city's assessment policy and it is recommended that they be assessed as presented next assessment objection was received from 920 Lake Avenue Northwest as it relates to the 10th Street Northwest improvements project uh the candy County HRA objected to the assessment and indicated that they could not be that they were not eligible for assessment according to Minesota statute 43519 the city does have authority um to assess other governmental units benefited by an by an improvement as if the property were privately held um for 35.9 makes it makes the city's Authority clear that the HRA can be assessed because they are a public body um and that brings that into the 4th 35.9 statute and because the improvements are benefit to the property and have been calculated according to the city's assessment policy uh there it is recommended that they be assessed as presented that was the final objection that was presented prior to uh the close of the Improvement hearing follow subsequent to the Improvement hearing and the public hearing being closed the assessment hearing and the assessment hearing being closed um there were a variety of other um seven other objections that were received following that um Improvement or following the close of the Improvement or the assessment hearing even though they received after um the close of the assessment hearing we did include them in your memo we've reviewed them uh have not made a formal recommendation as it relates to them because they were received after the hearing but our review did indicate that all of them were um calculated in accordance with the city's assessment policy and uh we are recommending that they be assessed as included in the assessment role so with that meing Council that concludes all of the assessment objections that were received for the 2024 improvements project and we are recommending that all of the exceptions with the exception of 7:30 13th Street Southwest um where the sanitary sewer service um assessment amount was removed from the we're recommending that the sanitary sewer assessment amount be removed from the assessment so with that I will pause for any questions that c might have otherwise there is a resolution and closing packets this evening um then Carl I would like to go and revisit that corner lot uh it was number four okay um so the way I'm looking at it that the her other side was done in 2012 and it's 130 feet and she was assessed at 115 along 14 Street Southwest yes uh so and now this is where the corner lot policy kind of changed I think this one needs to be a readjust before she was getting paid you know almost 90% of that and now we're charging her 100% being on short side I don't think that's right you know charging somebody you know double for a corner lot and this corner lot policy does need to change again we need to get this fixed I'd like to make a recommendation of lowering this one down to 30% of the cost on that because that would put her a little bit over 100% on both streets versus on up 200% how do we do that um we did yeah I know but I'm I'm thinking the process out did we take it as a motion and then vote indiv ually on each one um uh mayor members of the council if you would look on page 251 of your packet there are two motions subject uh suggested to resolve objections either singularly or uh multiple objections at the same time and if council member Butterfield is uh proposing to Grant the objection for the property listed at number four in the memo uh you could follow the language at number two should be a motion to Grant the objection sit in line number four of the city Engineers memorandum um and order a reduction to the assessment listed on the role of there's a blank dollar amount we'd have to figure out what that well I I'd be willing to wait till they all went through but I just want to bring that up to the point I think that's where this this address we need to be at you know we can have discussion at the end after we go through all of it but I'll bring that up at for the motion all right I've got Carl next so my question was on uh the uh churches so last year we found out that we had been assessing cemeteries improperly and do churches fall under that same guideline where where churches should not be assessed I'll defer to the City attorney but assess assessments to churches are different than assessments to cemeteries yeah that's correct the statutory exemption from assessments was unique to cemetery properties okay Julie uh two things first i g to um go off of this um voting on the role couldn't we do it um like uh we do um the um the included items like on a consent agenda where and then we just pull a certain number and so we could approve all of the ones that we don't have objection to that would work procedurally if the county or excuse me if the council wanted to um follow that procedure okay that Mak that would make sense to me that if we just approv them all with the exception of some that we're going to talk further about and then possibly do a an amendment to okay I would like okay so then my um second thing I I know most people's concern uh and objections were to cost and we've already talked um where we're at on that and where the money has to come from but there was numerous um comments about not getting notice so I'm I'm thinking okay that's something we can fix that's something we can address so besides the newspaper um do we uh do we put it on the city's website that there's going to be a public hearing um so it was on the city's website is it on our Facebook page that there was going to be a hearing so like in November on what those those um projects were okay and um do we do anything on the radio say like if um you're talking on open mic uh is there other ways on the radio that we are um notifying people can we make an effort to do that it's just to take away one less aggravation um to a citizen I'm just trying to think of how we could get that word out a thank you Mary ree um my question is on the one that um M council member Butterfield brought up so they were assessed in 2012 what is our policy they can't be assessed more than once every 20 years so this is less than 20 years MH but your comment was that the policy changed so that we could assess them they were only assessed for one side in 2022 right but we did we didn't do the street on both sides did we no no but now we're looking to assess the side of budding the Improvement in just the one side yes not the other side correct so we're following our policy yes on okay okay just to get back at conil member Nelson's done that before it was about 90% on the old policy on this new policy they're paying you know 100% so they're it's being double dipped in 20 years in my opinion J I have a question um we've had a couple people who have objected you know to the costs and stated that they couldn't pay it that they have a hardship and we've talked about hopefully I'll advertise it again if anyone's out there and they're looking haven't heard it yet you can apply for a deferred assessment based on hardship or you have to meet certain criteria that works for individuals what about organizations I know you know for instance you know as council member show this point out there were churches listed here what if a church doesn't have that money what if a nonprofit hopefully the HRA will be okay but what happens to organizations is there any policy or procedure that they can go through um for hardship I don't recall specifically what the assessment policy says as it relates to that but we'll certainly look into into that I don't know if it's individual specific or or not so anyone else on staff could speak to that because it seems to be relevant it's limited to Homestead Property um and there are four criteria that would qualify someone for consideration for a deferment um all deferments would need to be approved by the council which is why uh formally applying in time for the council to be able to approve a deferment no later than what would it be October 21st and the last council meeting would be the 21st I think so the the last time for the council to approve a deferment before it would go on the uh roles that the county certified for next year would be the October 21st meeting so it's important to apply to the city in time for that to be on your agenda for October 21st um the four criteria for consideration of deferment would be if the property is owned by a person uh 65 years of age or older is owned by a person who is retired by virtue of a permanent and total disability is owned by a member of the uh Minnesota National Guard or other military Reserves uh who has been ordered into active military service um or if there are other exceptional and unusual circumstance is not covered by the first three that the council could consider so there is a little flexibility built in okay so that certainly speaks to some of the objections we've heard but as far as the two congregations and the HRA it's not a homestead property there's no objection no valid objection for them no no no valid Bas qualify for different hardship yes thank you appreciate the clarification so at this point are we looking for a motion to Julie comment uh mayor I guess my suggestion would be consistent with the suggestion by councelor osmus would be I'm kind of keeping track of the list of any specific properties addressed in the memorandum that the council would like to address separately with the idea that once that list is completed the council could take action on the remaining Parcels that have not been specifically requested to be removed and then we can come back one by one on the ones that have been we should have a an understanding of what Parcels we're talking about then so far my list has one parcel it's line four in the engineers memorandum and the other one that I would not what council is number nine which is the reduction related to the uh removal of the sanitary sewer component of the assessment so um the motion I believe that be appropriate is to deny the objections listed in the memo with the exception of four and nine my yes Julie um is it just the um for four was it just that there they had the previous assessment in 2012 or are we talking about the corner Lots because then we'd have another one correct C osus I was talking about 2012 they were assessed at about 90% of the the street valy now they're being assessed 100% on this new one I would be making the motion to bring in at 30% of of their total cost their total cost for this assessment was $10,000 I'd be making it to be brought down to we'll we'll get to that in the specific on that well I know I'm just bringing but I'm thinking is it just that it's the corner lot yeah it's the corner lot another one that was a corner lot so are we also going to include that one I don't think the other corner lot had the previous 2012 assessment for the previous assessment that was the question okay so we're not including the other one no okay so I need a motion I'll make a motion to um to accept the role as presented in the memo uh removing number four and number nine second okay we got a motion and a second discussion mayor if I can just uh make a suggested edit to the motion which would be to resolve the objection consistent with the engineers memo with the exception of lines four and line n I'm open to that however it should be worded is know what you said I thought so sounded very familiar so we're passing on the ones so by taking this action the council will be resolving all the objections except for lines four and lines nine and you'll have to come back for specific motions on each of those okay but does she have to we didn't have a second yeah we did we had a second so we should pull that back oh you're fine if everyone understands what the motion is I think you can move forward to vote on this motion okay right roll call council member ferly hi osmus hi Butterfield I O'Brien hi oos hi Nelson hi Davis Hi and shoulders hi eight eyes zero nose Okay that passes [Applause] do four n okay I need a motion on those J can I inquire um I'm grateful for council member Butterfield bringing up line for I had the same thought that we we ran into this last year we recognized it was unfair to assess uh you know a corner lot basically by the worst of both policies like they were getting hit by the worst you know of it both times and I'm just wondering what did we do last year with that is that something that we can have quick access to because I'd like to remain consistent with that and if it turns out to be 30% is that just a reduction of 30% so they actually paid 70% and that was my fault on my wording last year that's why I'm changing the awarding this year that they're only going to pay 30% not a 30% reduction so so the so if the bill would be $10,000 they be paying $3,333 that they're paying 30 30% but last year we did a 30% reduction and now you want to do a 70% reduction yeah they were already can't support that 10 years ago they were at a 90% they paid 90% of it I want to remain consistent but last year was my fault on my wording this year I'm just kind of rechanged my word make it fair for the homeowner you know uh there's still paying over 100% if you look at the 80% and the 30% that's 110% that they're paying you know uh that's why this corn lot we really need to get this problem fixed guess I would say that this Council recently looked at the corner lot policy this year and affirmed it again um I understand when it comes up for assessments and the way that it does like it does for number four like I'm okay to make um an adjustment but I want to remain consistent with that and would would love to be able to see the minutes of that meeting if we can pull that up quickly and just go clarification on that and I know there's probably this complicated the calculation but in 2012 when they were assessed would it be correct to say that they were only assessed on 115 ft when the actual footage was 130t so they actually had a reduction of five feet 15 feet um sorry yes yeah that's good math that's correct we verified the the footage along the previously assessed Street and didn't find any indication as to why it went from 130 to so they got a break in 2012 is what I'm saying but yeah they still paid almost 90% you know of their sare 4 on that one you know if you do the math it's 88.46% Square you know of the yes J um I'm looking at City staff is it possible to get the minutes from last year's meeting tonight okay I thought you might be can we move on to number nine and come back to to number one I would move to accept the recommendation of Mr vogi that we reduce that assessment by the to the 57250 yes second we got a motion and a second discussion roll call council member Asus I Butterfield I O'Brien I oos I Nelson I Davis Hi shers hi and ferly I eight eyes zero nose that passes wait we take a break while we look that up yes I think that's a great idea we'll take a five minute break okay so we need a motion on number four I like to make the motion that we reduce uh 2024's 2025 assessment rule by 30% that be consistent of what we did last year on the corner lot second we got a motion a second discussion Audrey so am I correct in 2012 they assessed the wrong amount of property so they got a break in 2012 for they didn't do the whole whole thing yeah so as a matter of clarification in 2022 the Improvement that was completed is 130 ft long based on the records that we obtained from the assessment at that point they were assess for 115 feet so there's an a 15 foot reduction that came into place somewhere so is what we're doing Fair [Music] well I'm just I'm just saying I I understand question I I just it is consistent with what was done last year um based on what I heard in the motion I it's in 2022 there was no backup documentation as to where why it could have been a discussion like this I don't know um why it was 115 when it's actually measured at 130 so there was a 15t reduction basically we're doing this because they were assessed in 2012 the portion assessed in 2012 isn't proposed to be assessed in 20204 with the change that we're making right with this motion the current assessment for that property is $971 based on motion on the floor currently that a assessment would be $679 [Music] 7.70 which is a 30% reduction that's what I was going for was what okay we got a motion in a second Justin yeah thanks just to clarify because I feel like why I think this is Justified is that in 2012 we had a corner lot policy that stated that you know one side was going to be charged for the the full 100% And then you'd get a reduction on the other side of your property if you live on that corner property the street that they had done was at the 100% then we changed our policy and flipped those around right because now it's you're to get charged 100% on the short side giving the corner lot uh you know maybe a little bit of a benefit that you or that you know you're not going to be charged 100% on the long side and now they're getting hit with 100% charge again as we flipped those around so that's why that's why I was supportive of the 30% reduction last year and we'll be happy to support it again tonight and I just was questioning that they didn't get the full assess they didn't get assessed on the full amount in 2012 right which also could have been engineering eror someone entered a number wrong I like to blame the engineer okay are we done with discussion or you right we will uh roll call council member Butterfield hi O'Brien Hi O hi Nelson hi Davis Hi shies hi baggerly Hi and osus hi eight eyes zero nose thanks Council thank you Jared a question do we need to adopt the role or have we already done that yes good point the uh Council has now resolved all of the objections that were filed you do need a motion and uh to adopt that resolution approving the assessment rle so moved second here we got a motion in a second to adopt the 2024 assessment role discussion roll call council member O'Brien i o i Nelson hi Davis hi sches hi baggerly hi osmus hi M Butterfield I eight eyes zero NOS pass all right um next approval of purchase agreement with Cura Robert thank you mayor members of the council um the next four items on your agenda all relate to the uh Kira Care Center transactions and these are matters that have been before the council um with a couple twists of new development so if it's okay I will give you kind of the overview and then if you'd like I can do a shorter uh explanation when we get to each item previously the council has adopted a resolution approving in concept The Proposal from centri care to uh turn the Care Center business over and transfer operations to Kira and uh since the city is the owner of that real estate and is leasing the real estate to centri care under the operating lease for the entire Rice Memorial Hospital System um as owner of the real estate the city would need to then uh transfer the real estate to Kira in order to complete that transfer and this has come to the council previously the council initially adopted a resolution approving of the requested uh transfer and uh uh transfer of the property from centri care to Kira it also uh approved the uh a series of steps that would be necessary one of those steps would be a lease amendment to remove the Care Center property from the operating lease that the city has with centri care so centri care would continue under the lease all of the Rice Memorial Hospital properties except the Care Center would be removed from the lease so that the city as owner of that property would be able to transfer it to Cura um that has all uh come before the council and been approved and concept um the city also has taken the step of passing an ordinance authorizing the sale of the Care Center property to Kira that's a charter required step for any sale of real property and that ordinance was conditioned on the city approving a purchase agreement with Cura um the first item on your agenda tonight is that purchase agreement um City uh purchase agreement with Cura to uh sell and transfer the real estate for the care center to cira consistent with the council's previous approvals SEC uh the second item I'll just run through all of them and I'll come back one by one the second item on your agenda is uh the least amendment that would re remove the care center from the city's operating lease with Rice Memorial Hospital and again those those two items I think are uh foreseen and previously contemplated by the city and the approvals granted to date the ask the city head you'll notice the purchase price for the uh Care Center property and the purchase agreement is nominal the city's ask of centri care to go along with this transfer was that in addition to the Care Center that the properties owned by Rice home medical one in Wilmer one in Redwood Falls also be removed from the lease and turned back to the city um the third item item 9e on your agenda is a resolution that will approve of the acquisition of those properties it would be uh conveyed Rice home medical is under the control of centri care under the lease um removing them from the lease is one step that's accomplished in the lease Amendment which is an item D in your agenda item e approves race home medical then transferring title to those properties back to the city so the city will both be removing them from the lease and taking title back from R Home Med um I think all of that has been uh understood in the approvals the city has granted today what uh we are also doing tonight or what the agenda items contemplate would be addressing another situation that we've learned about since the council last acted and that is that the rice Home Medical properties again one in Redwood Falls and one in Wilmer are currently under lease from Rice home medical to Corner Home Medical um they are also subject to an option to purchase by I think individuals associated with or entities associated with Corner Home Medical um when the city accepts title to those properties back it's also being asked to accept Centric haes or excuse me Rome Medicals obligations under those leases the obligations are essentially to continue leasing there are rent payments contemplated um and then the option accepting rights home Medicals obligations under the option which are to sell the properties for Value uh to the entities affiliated with Corner home medic um The Twist is that the option that Rao medical has agreed to with the corner Home Medical entities uh contemplates the sale of both properties and the prospective buyer is only interested in purchasing the Redwood Falls property um there is an appraisal process built into the option the purchase price was going to fall somewhere between 1.8 million and 2.4 million depending on the outcome of that appraisal process we're now talking about not both properties but just the Redwood Falls property and uh the city is in negotiations on a new purchase price so there's a series of steps to that will unfold here and when I mentioned those purchase prices those would be payable to the owner of the r Home Medical properties currently that's race home medical um that those properties will be transferred to the city and the city will R Home Medical rights under those agreements with the expectation that uh a new agreement will be reached with the corner home Medicals entities on a purchase price that they would pay to the city for the sale of the Redwood Falls property so those last steps accepting the Assumption of the assignment of lease and option are addressed in the second half of the resolution in item e and uh item F would then be an ordinance authorizing the sale of that Redwood Falls property to the Corner Medical related entities um future actions that we cannot accomplish tonight that would come back before you would obviously be the public hearing on the ordinance authorizing the sale of that Redwood Falls property um as well as the amendments to the uh lease with the corner Home Medical entities to remove the Wilmer property uh and the option agreement to remove the Wilmer property from that agreement as well so that's the context um most of this I think is consistent with the council's understanding when it has approved this transition previously with the new developments related to the lease and option uh on the corner Home Medical uh Properties or the properties that are leased to Corner Home Medical so with that um I'll pause for any questions then I can take these one by one all right any questions Rick who is Corner Home Medical Stein Hill out of the Cities oh so they want to buy red Falls yes but not the Wilmer one they have moved out of the Wilmer one and they are at the old Habitat for Humanity on First Street where they moved to counc the upshot of if the council were to approve all of the resolutions tonight and follow through with the adoption of the ordinance and approval of a purchase agreement for the sale of the Redwood Falls property would be that you would be paid a purchase price to be determined for the Redwood Falls property and you would own the Wilmer property uh for conance to uh developer or other interested party when the time is right so what we need right now is a motion to purchase with Cura the first item item n9c on the agenda is simply to approve the purchase agreement with Cura I mentioned that's for a nominal price uh this for the transfer of the Care Center property to Kira uh consistent with previous approvals consistent with the ordinance adopted and I will point out in the purchase agreement one request that the Planning Commission had was that the city include a covenant in this deed conveying the property that uh Kira will continue to operate the uh long-term care facility on that premises for the next five years and they have agreed to that that is included in the purchase agreement so what be be recommending would be the the council approve the purchase agreement between the city and Kira for the sale and transfer of the Care Center property so moved second we got a motion and we have a second discussion Rick so will they be paying property tax on that there nonprofit know no this is Kira this one's on Kira we're talking about Kira we're on C oh I'm sorry it's all right I had of myself any other discussion roll call council member OS hi Nelson hi Davis hi hi ble hi Osmos hi Butterfield hi and O'Brien eight eyes zero nose motion passes Shir is operating it right now correct so will they be paying property tax they will obviously when this transaction closes they would be the fee owner of the property whether they as a non profit healthc care provider essentially are subject to property tax I have not researched so won't be a payment and L of taxes it'll be actual spread out among the school County maybe however the ass all right okay all right the second item uh related to the Care Center is item 9d on the agenda that's to approve a Le Amendment the lease Amendment removes the Care Center property together with the two Rice home medical Parcels from the operating lease as as described and this one again is uh entirely consistent with the previous Council approvals motion to approve second we got a motion and a second discussion roll call council member Nelson I Davis Hi shes hi ble hi osas hi Butterfield hi O'Brien hi and O hi eight eyes zero nose all right third Care Center related item is item 9e this is to approve the acquisition of the two Rice home medical properties and agreed to assume the owner's obligations under the existing lease and option agreements for those properties so moved second you got a motion and a second discussion see none roll call council member Davis Hi sches hi Bly hi osmus hi Butterfield hi O'Brien o hi and Nelson I eight eyes zero nose that passes and the final item related to the Care Center transactions is the introduction of an ordinance sell authorizing the sale of the Redwood Falls parcel currently owned by rayon Medical but will be conveyed to the city um this item will be contingent on the city approving a purchase agreement at a future meeting this is just a set of public hearing on the ordinance as introduced for October 7th and discussions will continue about a purchase agreement purchase price and the needed amendments to the lease and option that the city will be assuming I'll make that motion second we got a motion in a second discussion hearing none roll call council member shes I Bly hi osus hi Butterfield hi O'Brien i o i Nelson I and Davis I eight eyes zero nose that passes thank you Mr Scott leading us through that um next Frank um we're donation of fire prevention smoke Escape house trailer Mr Mayor members of the council um tonight before I use a resolution to approve accepting a donation from the city of Renville of a fire prevention SL smoke Escape house trailer um I was approached about two weeks ago from the rville fire chief that said that they had this trailer um that they don't utilize thought we could utilize it more um is used for fire prevention um to teach kids how to get out of smoke field rooms and adults both um I believe in your packet there's a couple of pictures um the trailer is a 2002 trailer um it was donated to runville fire from Eden Prairie Fire Department I believe about four years ago um they have used a little bit but they didn't they didn't use it as much as they thought they would um I did go down and take a look at it last week and it's in very nice condition um so I am asking you to accept the donation of the trailer to approve second um I just have a question for go ahead Chief is there going to be any foreseeable maintenance we're going to need on on this is this going to be you know good to go you know besides like tires but I me like electrical or anything like that I I don't foresee anything um we may do some updating of it later on um but nothing major they say everything work everything works perfect um so as of this point we're good to go just I was just going to say theoretically you could have been item 9A on the agenda tonight did you assult the city administrator or lose a bet what happen I was thinking that earlier [Laughter] too hey do we don't have Audrey I'm just curious why they're donating it and why they didn't use it or why they didn't share it with other fire departments down in their neighborhood I I believe they did um they did share it a little bit um they just don't do a lot of stuff like that um compared to what we do and our plan is also to share it throughout the county so other departments can use it okay thank you Mike then Julie then Rick just like to say thank you to them for the donation I was I was pretty excited um the fire chief and I are pretty good friends and and he was excited to call me and say hey I got this opportunity for you okay we'll come and get it if we can so Julie where are we storing it it's bigger than I thought it would be it's bigger than I thought it would be um we are going to store it out at the old wastewater treatment plant um we've made a arrange out there there's no place inside um but it's been stored outside for 22 years and still in a really good condition so we're hoping to get a couple more years out of that Rick ice fishing try 35 feet long so maybe all right we've got a motion and we've got a second any other further discussion roll call council member ferle hi osas hi Butterfield hi O'Brien Hi O hi Nelson I Davis Hi and shies hi eight eyes zero nose thank you thank you Frank any uh Community Pride announcements Tom go first I'll just tell people we'll probably remind him again on October 7th but um at the fire department on October 8th there is going to be an open house that's where they have their uh reading night with the firefighters and they'll have some supper there and just a fun night to see all the firefighting equipment so mark that on your calendars all right and Justin I have have two actually um just a reminder to the public to uh please complete the comprehensive plan survey uh this is your chance to share your vision for wmer future on land use housing Economic Development and Recreation uh uh you can take the surveys up until September 30th if you go to Wilmer mn.gov there'll be a popup in the right corner and you can take the survey there it's a fairly short survey it'll only take you a couple minutes to do that and then secondly uh love to give a shout out to uh Linda Whitman who is retired just retired last Friday after 39 years uh at the law enforcement center uh it was a very different place out there uh today uh her cubicle being empty so um 39 years Linda worked out there and so she will be missed Vicki I have an idea for a mayor I think I'm wondering if you could have a comprehensive assessment policy task force put together to help create a comprehensive policy that would benefit us something to think about okay right Justin thank you uh I was out of town this weekend but heard wonderful things about uh welcome day on Saturday and I know you were there and I don't know Pablo if you have anything to share with us about favorite moment or anything like that yeah had great turnout yeah turnout of displayers turnout of people attending yeah no just I've heard such great feedback from it and just proud to be part of Wilmer uh that gets to hold a big wonderful day like that yeah it was it was a special day special afternoon Mike uh we just found out that Beth mat his ministr of secretary at Municipal Utilities is going to retire after 44 years in Jan jary 44 years do you have something to tell I would just like to make a recommendation that uh we kind of look at our dog ordinance that we have and get that on the agenda here in next month or so we've had increased dog bites and just last week we had a dog bite by a dog that was not vaccinated and that person is going through headaches with the Minesota Health Department on what they can do to get get Rab's vaccinations big Runar around so I think we really need to look at the our dog at policy here in Walmer again because they've really been going up this year I don't know how many we've had this year now so far at least four or five that I know so I think that's one thing we have to do is take a look at that that's coming from a male carrier add to that there two mpal utilities um Personnel were bit also just recently right anything else I'm looking for a motion motion to adjourn second adjourn for