Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-1991RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 819 Adjourned Meeting No. 14 r November 18, 1991 Agenda Item A-1 President Selby called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., the follow- ing members being present: President Selby,`Aldermen Canfield, Crawford, Hunziker, Petersson and Solinger. Absent: Alderman McConnel Crawford moved, Petersson second to approve the minutes of the November 4, 1991 meeting. Ayes (6); Nays (0).Motion carried. B-1 A Hearing on the Proposed Reassessment of 50 lots in Golden Hill, Hilmer's High View Acres, Toogood Plaza, Oak Hills, Kleist's'Replat Cavilima and Tongen's. This were part of City J Number 8995/8996, 8475 and 8476,8952, 8993, 8752, 8729. Wishing to be heard was David Alexander of.Rochester..and his property was assessed at another time and it was $12,000 (approx) and now the rest of his neighbors are being assessed $5,000.00. He stated that he as well as Eloise Dresbach should have the same opportunity to settle for $5,000.00., Ron Halling, Right of WayAgent for the City. of Rochester explained how the currentesituation arose and that the current amounts are based on appraisals made because of the appeal made by the property owners considered in this hearing. Wells were also considered by the appraiser. Wishing to be heard was Dale Arndt of 203 17th St. S. W. He wanted to clarify what the exact boundary of his property that is included in this assessment. Mr. Roger Plumb, Public Services Dir. stated that it was all of the property in the area assessment. Wishing to be heard was Ron Jepson of 1916 4th Avenue S. W., He wanted to know how the $5,000 was arrived at or did the Council initiate this figure Dave Goslee, Assistant City Attorney stated that this amount was arrived at by appraisals. These did not go to court to come up with the $5,000. assessment. Wishing to be heard was.Elizabeth Walters of 404 24th St. S.W. She stated that the previous property owners of the first assessments were not treated fair and that they thought they appealed, but that did not count. She urged the Council to treat all the property owners in the area fair and give them all a chance to settle at $5,000.00 David Goslee, Ass't City Attorney stated that the notice of public hearing did have listed the instructions as to further action the property owners could have taken in the event that they were unhappy with the assessment as adopted by the Common Council. Alderman Solinger stated that the assessment procedure by the Common Council was the same for the area in question as the Council had for every other property owner in.the City of Rochester. This group of people came forth too late to appeal the assessment and other people since that time filed the appeals in time and sought legal help and thus this is back.before the Council at this time. It was not something the Council did different. Alderman Canfield stated that many people asked questions - the right questions at the time of their assessment hearing. The questions were answered by Public Services, previous City.Attorney and the only thing missing was that they had 30 days to appeal this assessment. People have had their house payments,doubled, lost their property and this has caused deep pain for these people and the Council does not have an answer for this. 3820 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROGHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 14: - November 18, 1991 Agenda Item B-2 Having no one else present that wished to be heard, President Selby closed the hearing. Alderman Hunziker stated that if this assessment hearing was re -opener then we ( City ) would be subject to reopen every other assessment hearing the City ever had.. Terry Adkins, City Attorney stated that legally the City could do that, but the policy of the City is not to do that. Gary Neuman, Assistant City Adm. stated that nothing was done different -in calculating the assessment in this case than the City had ever done in the past. Roger Plumb, Public Services Dir. stated that many other projects have been treated the same and have had large assessments because of annexation and where would the City ever quit if it opened this up again. Alderman Crawford questioned on how many people were affected. Roger Plumb stated that there were several projects and would involve several hundred people. Having no further discussion by the Council on the reassessments, Canfield moved, Petersson second to reassess the 50 lots that are listed in this hearing and adopt the following Resolutions No. 569-91 thru 575-91. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. Discussion was held on the concerns of the people that were previousl, assessed and did not appeal in the given time period that if the Council could consider any further action in that case. Alderman Crawford asked how many of the people came to the Council at the.time of their assessment and did not seek legal representation she was told about 50% of the homeowners. Alderman Solinger stated that*he would like to see more information on how farback the City should go, cost to the city etc. if this was ever to be considered. Alderman Canfield stated that this was appropriate and that more information is needed. Based on discussion of the Council, Petersson moved, Solinger second to table action on the possibility of opening this assessment up again until more information can be received from staff. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. A letter in opposition was received from William A. Wesselman of 1705 4th Avenue S. W. A Hearing on the Petition to annex 21.63 acres by Rodney Younge and rezone to the Flood Fringe Dist. at the time of Annexation. This is property located at the SE corner of CSAH 22 ( Circle Dr. Historic Society Rd. and CSAH 34-Co.Club Rd. S.W. Having no one present that wished to be heard, President Selby closed the hearing. Alderman Petersson asked if we were rezoning property in the flood plain case by case or what - she was informed that it is considered individually. Alderman Crawford stated that she is bothered by rezonin, land in Flood Plain to be used. She was informed that the City does have stricter regulations than the Federal Government and the Federal Govt. allows this sort of rezoning. Jeff Ellerbush of the Planning Dept. stated that if homes were built down stream then it would be another matter, but nothing can get hurt down stream with this zone change. Having no further disucssion, Solinger moved, Hunziker second to instruct the City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance for adoption on the rezoning. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF POCy� STEM M��N%9TA Adjourned Meeting No. 1C.- I�ovem er , 3822. Agenda Item B-3 A Hearing on the Zone Change from the B-lb Dist. to the B-4 Dist. on property located-alg.the S side of Eastwood Rd. S. E. and Alg the E. side of Marion Rd. S. E. dir. S. of the new Post Office Bldg. Donald Krahn and Daryl Nigon, petitioners. Having no one present that wished to be heard, President Selby.closed the hearing. Hunzike moved, Crawford second to instruct the City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance making the change. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. B-4 A Hearing on the Final PUD Plans for Barclay Square Shopping Center (Amended plan). Wishing to be heard was Tom Erlick of Tanurb Dev. Developing Barclay Square. Mr. Erlick presented the overall plans for the remodeling and gave a brief summary of expected shops and signage to be used for this center. He also stated that they agree with the conditions as placed by the Planning Dept. Alderman Crawford questioned the parking for the center. Mr. Erlick stated that it would be across the driveway from the center. They will have parking for handicapped on the same side as the center. Having no one else present that wished to be heard, President Selby closed the hearing. Solinger moved, Petersson second to adopt Resolution No. 576-91 with the conditions as set forth by the Planning and Zoning Commission as stated in the Request for Council Action. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. B-5 A Hearing on the Proposed Changes to Fares on ZIPS Dial -A -Ride. Wishing to be heard was Mrs. Darlene Alstrom of 243 Harvest Ave. N.W. and urged the Council to keep the ZIPS in the urban area. Having no one else present that wished to be heard, President Selby closed the hearing. Solinger moved, Petersson second to adopt Resolution No. 577-91 approving the changes. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. B-6 A Hearing on the Final Draft Transit Dev. Plan. Wishing to be heard was Tony Knauer of the Traffic Dept. Public Services 1602 4th St. S. E. and introduced Mr. E.T. Stoddard - of Leigh, Scott and Cleary of Denver Colorado, Consultant. He presented an overall summary of the Operations Plan and Financing. The summary of Service Changes are listed on the Request for Council Action No. 1-9 including financing. A written comment was submitted by Eileen Schneider of Rochester. Having no one.else present that wished to be heard, President Selby closed the hearing. Written comments will be received until December 9, 1991 and Action will be taken by the'Common Council on December 18, 1991. E-1 Wishing to be heard on the Charitable Gambling Ordinance was Mark Anderson of Rochester, Mn. and he urged the Council to adopt the State Guidelines and abolish the current Gambling Ordinance. After discussion, Alderman Crawford stated that she has great sympathy as to, the issue of whether we have gambling or not, but we do not want to discriminate by adopting something that is not legal either so she will vote for this being abolished and abide by the State laws. Alderman Solinger stated that it is up to the people if they want to gamble or not. He does not think the government should survive on gambling profits tho. He stated that he did not receive any phone calls against abolishing the City Ord. and abide by the State laws. 3822 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. 14 - Nov. 18, 1991 Agenda Item E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 E-7 Alderman Crawford stated that she had some phone calls. Alderman Canfield stated that "We can't change the world, but whatever changes we can make will help".He is not in favor of this. Having no further discussion, Petersson moved, Solinger second to abolish.the City's current charitable gambline Ordinance and the State would then approve all gambling applications with the City only requiring a premise permit. The City Attorney will prepare an Ord. for adoption. Ayes (5), Nays (1). Alderman Canfield voted nay. Motion carried. Solinger moved, Petersson second to adopt Resolution No. 578-91 approving the 1992 Community Development Block Grant Appropriations as follows: 1. HRA Housing Rehab-$220,000.- 2. HRA Program Adm. $20,000.; 3. Omnia Fam. Services (Acq.%Rehab). $19,740. 4. Arc of Olmsted Co. (Public Svc.) $14,500.; 5. Child Care Resources & Referra' (Public Svc.) $27,886. 6. Habitat (Acq/Rehab) $19,714. 7. HRA Acq./Rehab) $43,437.; 8. Channel One Inc. ( Acq./Rehab) $19,589.; 9. We Can House (Acq.Rehab) $3,714. 10. Thomas Group In.c ( Acq. Rehal $6,929. 11. SEMCIL (Public Svc.) $3,857.; 12 ABC ( Acq/Rehab) $16,634. A Total of $418,000. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. Solinger moved, Crawford second to adopt Resolution No. 579-91 approving the lease agreements with Hoi Huynh and Carolyn Weber of 218-226 First St. N. E. plus the leases for Nancy Gosath and Yevgery Kalso. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. Petersson moved, Crawford second to adopt Resolution No. 580-91 approving the purchase of 826 6th Ave.. N. W..for $39,500. to complete the lot split for the Stage 3 of the Corps project Flood Control. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. Solinger moved, Petersson second to adopt Resolution No. 581-91 amending the Bylaws of Coalition of Greater Mn. Cities to allow cities of the first class from outside the seven Co. Metro area to be eligible for membership in the Coalition. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. Hunziker moved, Crawford second to adopt Resolution No. 582-91 retaining the firm of LSA Design to provide consultant services on the remaining stages of the Corps project with a cost not to exceed $5,000.00. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. Petersson moved, Crawford second to adopt the following resolutions as approved by the Public Utility Board: Resolution No. 583-91 approving a purchase order with MEC Const. Inc. for No. Hills Well 34 in the amount of $112,585.00. Resolution No. 584-91.approving engineering services with Ulteig Eng. Inc. for structural design services for the Mayo Foundations Substn. in the amount of $62,500.00. L Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL 382 CITY OF ROUT _.STER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meetin'g.No. 14 - November 18, 1991 Agenda Item E-8 Hunziker moved, Crawford second to adopt Resolution No. 585-91 approving the vacation of a ten foot wide utility easement on the nor h of the West River Parkway and west of Third Ave. N. W. at the SE corner of the Hy-Vee North Stroe on Lot 1, Blk 1, Parkway Plaza Second Sub. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-9 Crawford moved, Petersson second to approve the Accounts Payble in the amount of $1,135,831.61 (File in the City Clerk's Office) Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-10 Petersson moved, Crawford second to adopt Resolution No. 586-91 awarding the low bid of Greenway Coop for furnishing gasoline and diesel fuel at the pump. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-11 Crawford moved, Hunziker second to adopt Resolution No. 587-91 approving the 1992 Cooperative Agreement with City of Rochester Public Services and ROCOG. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-12 Solinger moved, Hunziker second to adopt Resolution No. 587-91 purchasing that part of the Rochester Cemetery Assoc: Property for.construction of Stage 16-3 US Army Corps of Eng. flood control project for a purchase price of $13,000.00. Ayes (6), Nays(0). Motion carried. E-13 Petersson moved, Solinger second to table the request for Preliminary Plans for the Improvement of T.H. 63 from T.H. 14 to Meadow Run Drive. Upon Roll vote, Aldermen Canfield, Hunziker and President Selby voted nay. Nays (3). Aldermen Crawford, Petersson and Solinger voted aye. Ayes (3). This is a tie vote and did not carry. After Council Discussion, Crawford moved, Petersson second to have staff go back to Mn/DOT with the following approval.as indicated 1. Realignment of -the frontage road between 14th St.and Denny's Restaurant. 2. Installation of traffic signals at 14th and 20th Streets. 3. Interconnection of the signals at 9th, 12th, 14th , 16th 20th and 28th Strets. 4. Installing turn lanes for north -bound traffic at 3rd Avenue and 14th Streets. 5. Closing the west access at 3rd Avenue (under the pedestrian overpass) and opening an access at Meadow Run Drive. 6. Landscaping the area between TH 14 and the Olmsted Co. Fairgrounds. The Common Council added No. 7 - Installation of traffic signals at the end of 3rd-Avenue and South_" Broadway and eliminate the closing of the centerline medians at Third Avenue 'i( Res. 587A-91,=adopted:)(. Council wants this median to remain open ). Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-14 Petersson moved, Crawford second to adopt Resolutions No. 588-91 and 589-91 ordering a feasibility report and a hearing to be held on Dec. 18, 1991 on Project No. 9118 J 9211 - Construction of Curb and Gutter, Sidewalk and Driveway approaches in 1st St. N.E. and 1st Ave. N. E. Adjacent to Civic Square plus Watermain in lst Avenue N.E. from 2nd St. N.E. to 1st St. N.E. and on 1st.'St. N. E. from 1st Ave. to 2nd Avenue N. E. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. 24 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting -No. 14 - November 18, 1991. Agenda Item E-15 Hunziker moved, Crawford second to adopt Resolution No. 589A-91 awarding the low bid of $20.30 per veh. hour-$394,956.80 to Rochester Transportation Systems for the operation of the ZIPS Dial -A -Ride from 1992 thru the calendar year 1993. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-16 Crawford moved, Petersson second to adopt Resolution No. 590-91 approving the Contract Modification No. 4 (Solids Handling Improve- ments at the Water Reclamation Plant in the amount of $23,349.00. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. E-17 Hunziker moved, Crawford second to approve the following licenses and bonds: Dance- Single - Mugzee's at 524 llth Ave. N.W. - Nov. 27 and November 28, 1991. Signs - Graphic House, Inc. -Wausau, Wisconsin - Thru Dec. 31,1991. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. F-1 An Ordinance Relating to annexation of 21.63 acres of lands situated in portions of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 4 T 107N R 14W 'was given its first reading. F-1 An Ordinance Rezoning property to R-IFF in Sec. 4, T106N R 14W (annexed 21.63 acres ) was given its first reading. F-1 An Ordinance Rezoning property to B-4 (2.28 acres ) in Sec. 12, T106N R14W etc. was given its first reading. F-1 An Ordinance Amending Sub. 4 and 5 of Sec. 50.02 of Roch.Code of Ord. relating to Building Permit Fees was given its second reading. Petersson moved, Crawford second to adopt the Ordinance as read. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion darried'. F-1 An Ordinance Amending Chapter 103 of the Rochester Code of Ord. relating to the sale and dispensing of Cigarettes in the City of Rochester was given its second reading. Petersson moved, Hunziker second to adopt the Ordinance as -read. Ayes (6),,Nays (0).Motion carried. F-1 An Ordinance Establishing a PUD R-102 in a part of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 23, T 107N R14W, Olmsted Co. Mn. was given its second reading. Crawford moved, Hunziker second to adopt the Ordinance as read. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. F-1 An Ordinance establishing a PUD -R-16 in parts of Block 22, Northern Addition was given its second reading. Solinger moved, Petersson second to adopt the Ordinance as read. Ayes (6), Nays- (0).Motion carried. G-1 Canfield moved, Hunziker second to remove the request for On -Sale Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor for Dixie Barbeque Inc. DBA Ajouri's at 3918 18th Avenue N. W. from the table. Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion carried. Alderman Solinger was concerned about the land use and if alcoholic beverages could be allowed in this area. He was told it could. The primary use, however, had to be food. Having 1 Council Meeting Nov. 18, 1991 - Verbatim as"Exerpt from the hearing" Page -1- B-1 A Hearing on the Proposed Reassessment on 50 lots in GOlden Hill, _ Hilmer's High View Acres, Toogood Plaza, Oak Hills, Kleist's Replat Cavilima and Tongens J 8995/8996, 8475 and 8476, 8952, 8993, 8752 and 'Alderman 8729. It was requested that part of this hearing be typed verbatim as follows: Canfield At the time of this event when the'Golden Hill people were assessed, they came to the Council and I was under the impression, and so was John, and they asked many - many of the people here asked many of the right questions - ah um - and protested that the monies they were being charged for these assessments were going to confiscate , in some cases, confiscate their homes=' -:that to bring them service -that to bring them service - we would be taking their homes away - ah - this seems very destructive and we did have people - `..ah-=..from Public Services and ah -from the previous legal advisor and they explained that everything that would happen and how it would happen and what the charges were arrived at and everything was told to these people meticulously - except the one thing they needed to know and that was you only have 30 days to go see a lawyer and get a judge and let your protest be known to that judge or you: -lose forever your right - that was the one thing you were not told ',how criticial that 30 days was - and on that legal hinge, that"technically"- thank you John - we have charged a lot of people as much as $20,000.00 to bring services to a $40,000 home. We know of many cases where people immedialely doubled their house payments and I know what would happen if it doubled mine and on occasion this Council since then has been the pain, which;is obvious, has wrestled with it and we have not yet to come up with any reasonable suggestion.except that the thanks of the efforts of these people and the efforts of our new City Attorney and the efforts of this City Council in the last few years - everything is explained to everybody and nobody gets that surprise again. But, we still have a group - a small group in deep pain that we have not yet been able to wrestle with. President O.K., we are in the Public Hearing part of this. -and if the rest of you Selby wish to speak, or anybody else wish to speak in the audience - Is there anybody else Who_ -wishes - to come forward - I will say this three times - Is there,anybody else that wishes to speak on Public Hearing - item B-1 If not, I will declare the Public Hearing closed.and thank you for your testimony - Now Council -discussion or a motion - yes -John- Alderman There is a letter at our table from Mr. Wessleman - Ah - Do we deal with Hunziker that or is this just another - President Well, this was just given; to us a minute before the meeting, so I haven't Selby had a chance to read this. Ald. He is on the end of the list in the -well, not in theied&of it Hunziker on one of the lists and his property came out less then $5,000. value - so he did not -as far as I see, get in on the offer, but he feels that his should be reduced because everyone else got reduced even tho his was less to begin with and I am not sure Al.d. Solinger H -.was--reduced to $4,500 and it appears that he wants it reduced another $2,000.00. Ald. Hunziker And -I am not sure exactly how to -deal with that part of it, but as long as we are trying to deal with- Council Meeting Nov. 18, 1991 - Verbatim - Excerpt from hearing. Page - 2 - Pres. Selby I think Roger is maybe going to come back with;,an answer or Ron - are going to come back with an answer - it is difficult when we get a letter right before the meeting that we haven't had a chance -and it is a two page letter -and we are trying to deal with what this is all about. Ron Halling Mr. Wessl.eman is on the list - at $4,114.:58 and I guess my recommendation would be - if the Council wants to deal with this particular assessment that they set the assessment at that amount - the City has , after the stipulated agreements have begun - we went up to Stillwater and hired an, appraiser - who is also the Washington County assessor to come down and do one of the Oak Hills homes to try and see how our, negotiated agreement seemed to read out with someone who is knowlegp ble in both assessment field and appraisal field and our $5,000 agreement seems to work out pretty well with what that appraiser found and this number is quite a bit be -Tow 2-1-,.then what he found and I would think is a --very legitimate number. Pres. Selby The $4,114.58. Yeh, we will stick with that - is there any other discussion by the Council, I don't have a motion by the Council - don't have a motion anyone want to discuss anything anymore? that is fine - we will need a motion. Ald. Hunziker I guess I will ask another question— Ah - kind of dove tailing into what Chuck's little talk':was about - and the feeling I':had'was - and I guess I will address this to Dave or Terry was that the technicallity in essence, put the Council in the position that if we did indeed go back nd open up the assessment hearings we would end up having to do that with all the assessment hearings that we have ever,• had because it would have set the precedent that if you reopen up an;"assessment hearing after we would have to do that for every other assessment hearing that had ever been closed in the past history. Is there still a feeling that that is indeed right? Today, for instance we. -wanted tojust blanket everybody up ih-that'area for $5,000. In essence welwould have to open it up - the assessment hearings for all of the assessments that have been done in the City of Rochester in the past 20 years? Cause that seemed to be the technicality the whole thing hinged on was the technicality that caught these people was the fact that the assessment appeal time was over and i,f we went back and opened it up we would have to do it for everybody. Is that still a legal feeling of you as legal Counsel. I have this feeling that there is indeed -- Alderman Petersson Yeh Alderman and unfairness that happened but I don't know if that unfairness is something Hunziker that we are going to have to live with because of the fact of what might Pandora's Box be like if we did indeed do this. City Attorney I- think you are primarily asking a policy or administrative question rather-- A1d.Hunziker es. Selby d.Hunziker Well, I am not sure,I got the impression from a past lawyer -not- But not from the current City Attorney But from a past City Attorney that we could not do that legally because we would open up Pandora's Box - if you will - for every assessment hearing that has gone back into the 80's and before any of us were on - Council Meeting Nov: 18 - 1991 - Verbatim as "Exerpt from Hearing Page - 3 - ty Attorney Because we are dealing with specific fact situations in specific locale' I think you could make a factual determination any reopening should occur just in this area when you have similar properties when you have similar properties being treated in similar fashion but not going back 20 or 30 years ago in places in other parts of town. A1d.Hunziker Well, that is not the impression I got a couple of years ago.City Att.-That is as much as I can give you now, Legally I think you could ., policy wise, indeed have some precidential questions you may want to ask yourselves. It is a policy decision rather than a legal. You are under absolutely no legal obligation right now.! Ald. Hunziker I understand this, I guess what I am wondering is the impression I was left with, and I think Chuck and Pete was that, the past legal advice had been that it was a legal problem and if we did that it could come back all over the City now I am hearing somewhat different and I am just not -sure exactly - City Attorney There are no guarantees - somebody- Ald. Hunziker - I understand that - City Attorney - a 20 years ago could say that is not right, it should go back to when Rochester became a City and perhaps we would face that in court but I think we would have a pretty good argument to make that would deal with very specific facts and a very specific type -of problem confined in that area. There was more to this hearing, but the Council only requested the verbatim that is furnished in these three pages. Carole A. Grimm, CMC/AAE City Clerk RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Adjourned Meeting No. -14 - November 18, 1991 Agenda Item G-1 no further discussion, Canfield moved, Hunziker second to approve the request. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. G-2 Hunziker moved, Canfield second to remove the Award of Bids for Demolition of Houses at 1017 and 1027 West Center St. from the table. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. Solinger moved, Canfield second to reject the bids. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. B-3 Petersson moved, Crawford second to remove the request for a vacation of a five foot utility easement along the west side of Lot 8, Blk 3, Cimarron Fourteenth Sub. from the table:.Ayes (6.), Nays (0). Motion carried. Wishing to be heard was Julie Leisen of DeWitz Construction, 602 llth Ave. N. W. and she stated that they did not need this vacation and she would like a refund of the fees. Since the City of Rochester spent some of the funds (fee), Council would consider only those activities that the City Departments had not spen time/money on. The City Dept. that is involved is the City Clerk's Office in publishing the vacation notice and recording it. The City Clerk will calculate the charges and refund that part to Ms. Leisen. It should be approximately $50.00. The Council agreed that it is O.K. for this amount to be refunded. No action was taken and the refund was approved. Having no further business, Solinger moved, Petersson second to adjourn the meeting. Ayes (6), Nays (0).Motion carried. City Clerk