HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-11-06
October 11, 2006
Page 1 of 7
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in special session
on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 at the St. Joseph Community Fire Hall.
Members Present: Mayor Richard Carlbom. Councilors AI Rassier, Ross Rieke, Renee Symanietz, Dale
Wick. City Administrator Judy Weyrens.
City Representatives Present: City Attorney Tom Jovanovich, City Engineer Tracy Ekola
Others Present: Donald Schneider, Gladys Schneider, Drew Amo, Bud Reber, Margaret Reber, Dennis
Stueve, Judy Meemken, Eileen Kremers, Roger Beuning, Brian Lopan, Mark Anderson, Don Billadeau,
Ray Loehlein, Patty Loehlein, Herman Gangl, Tom Gustafson, Jeanette Reber, Irma Hoffmann, Mary Ann
Graeve, Bernie Heurung, Bernie Evans
Northland Heiohts - Final Assessment Hearino: Mayor Carlbom opened the public hearing and stated
the purpose of the hearing is to consider the final assessment roll for the improvements for the
development entitled Northland Heights. Previously the City entered into a Development Agreement
between the City of St. Joseph and Lumber One Avon. The Development Agreement requires the
developer to guarantee the assessments through a letter of credit.
City Engineer, Tracy Ekola presented the following overview of the improvement:
Feasibility Actual Estimated
Report Bid Final Cost
Construction Cost $ 1,891,915 $ 1,732,794 $ 1,678,094
Contingency 189,192 167,909 80,000
Engineering 340,545 302,237 270,000
Legal, Fiscal,Admin 189,192 193,096 205,850
Soil Borings 1,595 1,595 1,595
GRAND TOTAL 2,612,439 2,343,931 2,290,239
Number of Lots 88 88 88
Assessment Rate 29,687 26,636 26,025
Chad Carlson, representing Lumber One, spoke in support of the project. Carlson commended the City
Staff and SEH for the work on the project as it was completed timely and efficiently. Carlson questioned
what happens to any funds unused as the assessment includes a $ 80,000 contingency. Weyrens stated
that any funds remaining are placed in the debt service relief fund and used for future infrastructure.
Carlson questioned if the City has ever refunded the surplus to the developer to which the City Attorney,
Tom Jovanovich responded no. Carlson stated that Lumber One is agreeable to the proposed
assessment roll as presented.
Mayor Carlbom closed the public hearing at 7:07 PM.
Wick made a motion authorizing execution of Resolution 2006-33 approving the final assessment
roll for the development entitled Northland Heights as presented. The motion was seconded by
Rassier and passed unanimously
2006 Street Improvement - Final Assessment HearinQ: Mayor Carlbom opened the public hearing at
7:07 PM and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider the final assessment roll for the 2006
Interior Street Improvement Project. At this time Mayor Carlbom turned the floor over to the City Attorney,
Tom Jovanovich.
Jovanovich stated that the purpose of an assessment is to have the benefiting property pay for the
improvements for City infrastructure. The purpose of the hearing at this time is to review the
assessments for the improvements for the 2006 Street Improvement. If the assessment roll is adopted at
this meeting, the assessment becomes due and payable within 30 days. Any amount not paid will be
October 11, 2006
Page 2 of 7
certified to the Auditor for collection with the Real Estate taxes. The assessments will be paid over a 15-
year period at an interest rate of 6%. Jovanovich further clarified that if a resident contests the
assessment, a written objection must be presented to the City Council before the end of the public
hearing.
City Engineer Tracy Ekola presented the Council with a brief summary of the completed 2006 Street
Improvement project
Project Area: The project includes reconstruction of 1st Avenue E from Baker Street E to County Road
75; 2na Avenue E from Baker Street E to Ash Street E; 3rd Avenue E from Baker Street E to Ash Street E;
Able Street E from 1st Avenue SE to 3rd Avenue SE; Alley north of Able Street E from College Avenue S
to 3rd Avenue SE; Alley north of E Minnesota Street from College Avenue N to 3rd Avenue NE; Alley east
of 1st Avenue E from Baker Street E to Ash Street E; Alley east of 2nd Avenue SE from Baker Street E to
Able Street E; Alley west of 1st Avenue E from Alley north of Able Street to Ash Street E; Able Street E
from 5th Avenue SE to 6th Avenue SE; 5th Avenue SE from E Minnesota Street to Able Street E;
Forcemain on Able Street E from 6th Avenue SE to 5th Avenue SE pursuant to Minn. Stat. 99 429.011 to
429.111. The proposed improvement includes street, curb/gutter, and water/sewer replacement. In
addition, the project was expanded to include correction to a north/south alley north of Ash Street
between 2nd Avenue NE and 1st Avenue NE, installation of a sidewalk on the east side of 4th Avenue NE
and storm water improvements in the east/west alley between College Avenue and 1st Avenue NE.
Project Costs - Oriainal Project Scope
Construction Items
Final costs
Total
$ 803,454
438,001
227,184
165,223
$ 1,633,862
267,359
148,533
2,049,754
Street, Curb, Gutter
Sanitary Sewer
Water main
Storm Sewer
Sub Total
Engineering
Financing
Project Costs - Additional Scope
Forecemain Improvements
Correct Alley Drainage
4th Avenue Sidewalk
Alley Storm Sewer (COG)
$ 68,241
5,281
23,077
22,353
Proiect Fundina:
Assessment Revenue
City Funds
$ 1,141 ,707
1,026,998
Assessment Policv: Through practical application and Council resolution the City assesses property as
follows: Street Curb and Gutter is assessed on the front footage. If the property is a corner lot the City
assess 100% of the long side of the street and 50% of the short side. Sanitary Sewer and water are
assessed per unit. The total cost is divided equally amongst all benefiting properties.
Cost Sharina: The project costs are assessed on the following methods: New curb and gutter - 100%
of the project is assessed to affected property owners; Storm Sewer - 100% City contribution; Street
Reconstruction - 60% of the project cost is assessed to abutting property owners with the City
contributing 40% of the costs.
October 11, 2006
Page 3 of 7
Fundina Allocation
ITEM Assessed City Funds Total Cost
Residential Street $ 528,927 $ 352,618 $ 881,545
New/Replaced curb/gutter 90,079 36,705 126,784
Sanitary Sewer 329,458 219,639 549,097
Water Main 170,890 113,927 284,817
Storm Sewer 0 207,510 207,510
Sub Total $1,119,354 $ 930,399 $ 2,049,753
Added Items
Force main Improvements 0 68,241 68,241
Alley Drainage 0 5,281 5,281
4th Avenue Sidewalk 0 23,077 23,077
Alley Storm Sewer (COG) 22,353 0 23,353
2006 Street Improvement $1,141,707 $ 1,026,998 $ 2,168,705
Assessment Unit Costs
Residential Street
New Curb & Gutter
Replaced Curb and Gutter
Sanitary Sewer
Water Main
Proposed
$ 74.07/foot
17.21/foot
10.33/foot
3,305.24/unit
2,930.57/unit
Final
$ 67.87/ foot
16.27/foot
9.76/foot
2,579.94/unit
2,498.39/unit
Ekola stated that in addition to the assessed costs, residents are responsible for replacing the service line
from the main to their residence. This includes any turf restoration. Ekola also stated that residents who
chose to replace their entire driveway are reimbursed the cost of the apron, based on the contract price
and footage. To receive credit residents must submit a paid receipt to the City Offices.
At this time Mayor Carlbom opened the hearing to comments and questions from those present. Carlbom
requested that residents keep their comments and questions to three minutes.
Mary Ann Grave, 619 East MN Street questioned when the City adopted the policy for paying
assessments including the interest and terms of payment. She also questioned what process was used
for adopting the current policy.
Jovanovich responded that MN Statute 429 regulates the assessment procedure and it has been
in place for many days. The Statute requires that after the municipality adopts an assessment roll, a 30-
day payment period is required.
Bernie Evens, 301 East MN Street questioned how the interest rate is determined.
Weyrens responded that the interest rate is based on the bonding rate and is typically 1 % to 2%
higher that bond rate. The additional interest rate covers the administrative costs and provides for cash
flowing of the debt service. Jovanovich stated that the additional interest rate is a customary practice that
is used by all municipalities where he provides legal services. Rassier added that the City is required to
complete reports each year and the additional interest offsets that cost. Ekola stated that the interest
rate is the same rate presented throughout the project.
Tom Gustafson, 306 _7h Avenue SE questioned the City policy for reimbursing residents for driveway
aprons. Gustafson stated that it is his opinion the City made money on his driveway apron as he
replaced his entire driveway and he was not reimbursed the actual cost of the apron.
Ekola stated that when the project is designed the plans detail the square footage of driveway
apron that is to be removed. From that measurement, the value of the apron is calculated by using the
contract pricing for material and labor. If a resident wishes to replace their entire driveway, they are
reimbursed the cost the City would have paid for the apron replacement. Reimbursement is made only
October 11, 2006
Page 4 of 7
after the resident provides the City Offices with a paid receipt for the driveway replacement. Ekola stated
in the case of Gustafson, the contractor charged the resident the current material rate, not the contract
price. The contractor does not have to charge the residents the contract price and residents are
encouraged to receive a quote before finishing the work. So even though Gustafson was charged $ 3.00
more per square foot, the City did not receive that benefit.
Herman Gangle, 712 Dale Street East stated that it is his understanding that the City cannot assess the
property owner more than the improvement will increase the value of the property.
Jovanovich responded that the assessment should equal the value of the assessment. In the
case before the Council at this meeting, the water and sewer lines are in excess of 50 years old, which is
determined to be the useful life of the pipes. Therefore, when determining the value of the improvement,
it must be viewed as what is the value with and without water and sewer services.
Judy Memkeen, 19 - ~d Avenue stated that it is her opinion that she is being penalized for not having
curb and gutter in front of her house. It was not her decision to not have curb and gutter as a previous
Council made that decision. She stated that now she is being penalized and being assessed for new
curb and gutter.
Gladys Schneider 118 - ;tri Avenue SE spoke in support of the project. Schneider stated that she agrees
that previous street improvements have not been consistent so residents had different levels of street
improvements. However, the project is now complete and a nice improvement. Schneider questioned
why there is a meeting at this time as the project is complete.
Ekola responded that the hearing at this time is to accept the final assessment for the project.
Mike Amo, representing Drew Amo, 119 - 1st A venue SE questioned the status of the project and if it is
determined to be complete. Amo stated that there is an open area (hole) between the sidewalk and the
curb.
Ekola stated that without looking at the site she could not respond. However, Ekola stated that a
list of items to complete has been compiled and forwarded to the contractor. Issues identified at this
meeting will also be forwarded to the contractor. Amo also questioned the method for assessing corner
lots and the radius of the curve on 1st Avenue. Ekola stated that the shortest side of the property abutting
a street is assessed at 100% and the long side is assessed at 100%. With regard to the curve on 1 st
Avenue NE and the lack of curb, Ekola stated that Xcel Energy must move a pole before that portion of
the street will be complete. When the pole is relocated the contractor will finish the radius. Amo
questioned if any work will be completed on the service drive abutting the alley. Ekola stated that any
area disturbed as a result of the project will be repaired.
Ray Loehlin, 26 -;tri Avenue SE questioned the difference between the assessment prepared at this
meeting and what he has paid the City to connect to the utility system. He also questioned the additional
footage that is indicated on his assessment, as it is his understanding there is a City street or alley
abutting his property. He also stated that it appears as some of the sod is already dead.
Weyrens stated that the fee Loehlin paid to connect to the utility system is considered a water
and sewer access fee. This fee represents the asset that he is buying into and represents what the
residents have contributed. Ekola stated that water and sewer access fee are charged to all new utility
connections and help fund capital expenditures such as the new water treatment facility and sewer
capacity.
Jovanovich stated that we regard to the front footage being assessed Loehlin, the Stearns County
property tax records indicate that Loehlin owns the additional 20 feet. The City does not have a need for
the property and unless Loehlin provides the City with a quitclaim deed, the assessment will not change.
Loehlin questioned how he would change his abstract to reflect the revised footage. Jovanovich
responded that he would have to hire an attorney to correct his abstract.
Irma Hoffmann, 320 Ash Street East stated that he has a similar situation as Loehlin. Her abstract
indicates that she has 33 less front footage then is indicated on the assessment roll.
Jovanovich stated that same situation applies to her property. The City at one time had reserved
road right-of-way and it has been determined that it is no longer needed. Jovanovich stated that unless
October 11, 2006
Page 5 of 7
the City is provided with a quitclaim deed, the footage on the assessment will not change. He suggested
that she contact an attorney to update her abstract.
Don Billadeau, 117 - 1st Avenue SE questioned the east curb on 1st Avenue SE and stated that it angles
in and out. He is concerned that after five years the City will decide that the curb needs to be replaced
due to the street width difference and he does not want to be assessed again.
Ekola stated that the width of 1st Avenue SE was discussed and the Council decided that the
street did not need to be 36' wide. Therefore the street width tapers to a narrower width.
Cale Johnson, 212 East MN Street questioned if the alley behind his property will be improved or if the
work has been completed. He understood the alley would be widened as part of the improvement
project.
Ekola stated that the project is complete as it relates to his property. Originally the City proposed
to replace all the sewer lines using an excavating method. As the project was designed only sewer pipes
that needed to be repaired were excavated. The remaining sewer lines were replaced with technology
called cast in place. This method does not require excavation therefore the ally did not need to be
replaced. Johnson stated that the restoration work adjacent to his property has not been completed.
Ekola stated that she would add the property to the punch list items.
Steve Frank, 606 Birch Street West questioned if the interest rate came in higher than anticipated and
what happens to the additional interest that is earned. He further questioned if the City has ever re-
financed debt service.
Weyrens clarified that most of the improvement projects include a City contribution such as a tax
levy. Therefore, it the City received additional funds due to the interest rate, the annual levy would be
reduced, benefiting the entire tax base, not just the assessed residents. Rassier stated that the City has
refinanced debt in the past and with the help of bond counsel, the debt service is reviewed annually.
Brian Lopau, 35 East MN Street stated that he is unaware of how the financial end of the assessment is
handled and when the top layer of pavement will be laid.
Weyrens stated that by Statute residents have 30 days from adoption of the assessment roll to
make a payment on the total assessment. The assessment can be paid in full or part. Any balance not
paid by November 11, 2006 will be certified to the County Auditor for collection with the real estate taxes.
The amount certified is divided into 15 equal payments and at anytime after certification, the remaining
balance can be paid in full. With regard to the last layer of pavement, Ekola stated that the final lift of
bituminous will be laid in 2007. It is typical to let the pavement sit for winter before laying the final wear
cours.
Irma Hoffman, 320 Ash Street West questioned water that sits at the end of her driveway and the
condition of the sod.
Ekola stated the driveway will drain but they will watch the drainage through the spring. She also
stated that any sod that is not laid correctly or has died due to owner responsibility will be replaced.
However, some of the sod may not be replaced until Spring 2007.
Bernie Herung, 30 - 1st Avenue NE stated that she too is not happy with the sod as it appears as though
it was not leveled. She further stated that the sod also looked like small ends or pieces.
Don Schneider, 118 - :jd Avenue SE stated that he also has concerns with his sod. The mail carried
accidentally drove over the sod and the sod depressed one to one and one-half inches. Schneider
questioned why the contractor did not roll the sod when it was installed.
Ekola stated that the weather become rainy and wet and they tried to lay the sod in poor
conditions. The contractor is aware of the needed corrections and has agreed to do so.
Brian Lopau, 35 Minnesota Street East, questioned the mechanics of the 30 day warranty on the sod.
The contractor is responsible for maintaining the sod for 30 days, at the end of that period it becomes the
responsibility of the property owner. If the contractor comes back in the spring of 2007 and the sod is
October 11, 2006
Page 6 of 7
dead, they will determine if it was winterkill or owner responsibility. Any sod that fails under the warranty
will be replaced.
Pat Klocker representing Eileen Kremers, 26 1st A venue NE and Jeanette Reber of 33 - 1st A venue SE
expressed concern with the sod and requested that it be repaired.
Don Schneider, 118 - ;jd Avenue SE commented that his driveway apron is bowed. While he does not
want the driveway repaired, he wanted the City to be aware of the quality of work.
Bernie Evens, 301 East MN Street questioned why the residents are being assessed for a project that
has not been completed.
Ekola stated that the project is substantially complete and it is typical to assess the project at this
time. Weyrens added that since the project has been financed through the issuance of improvement
bonds, the first payment is scheduled for 2006. If the City did not schedule to receive payments,
capitalized interest would have been added to the cost.
Mike Amo presented the Council with an official written objection for the property owned by his son, Mike
Amo, Mike Amo, 1st Avenue SE and requested the same be placed in the official record.
The public hearing was closed at 8:30 PM
Rassier made a motion authorizing execution of Resolution 2006-34 approving the final
assessment roll for the 2006 Street Improvement. The motion was seconded by Wick and passed
unanimously
Recess: Wick made a motion to recess for 10 minutes at 8:30 PM; seconded by Symanietz and
passed unanimously.
Mayor Carlbom reconvened the meeting at 8:45 PM
Noise Violation. 29 East MN Street: Weyrens clarified that the Council tabled action on the disposition of
the noise violation that occurred on September 26, 2006 at 29 East MN Street. The matter was
considered on October 5, 2006 but tabled so that the City Attorney could be consulted regarding the
status of the rental license. The property changed ownership in October 2005 and the new owner did
complete the rental license transfer as required by Ordinance. Therefore, the property does not have a
current rental license for 2005 - 2006 and 2006 - 2007.
Jovanovich stated that he has reviewed the rental license situation along with the current noise violation.
First, the Council has separate issues before them at this time, the noise violation that occurred on
September 26, 2006 and the failure to transfer the rental license. The Council needs to act on the issues
separately. The Council questioned how they can impose a disposition on a license that has not been
issued. Jovanovich clarified that regardless of a license, the property still received a noise violation and
minor were served. That fact does not change with a rental license. Jovanovich clarified that the Council
should act on the two issues separately, handling the noise violation first.
Rieke made a motion to impose a $ 1,000.00 fine for the noise violation that occurred on
September 26, 2006 at 29 Minnesota Street East. The motion was seconded by Symanietz.
Discussion: Rassier stated that he does not support the motion as stated. If the first violation,
including minor consumptions results in the maximum fine, what happens if a second violation is recorded
for the property? In addition, it is his opinion that the fine would set precedence for similar noise
violations. Councilor discussed staying a portion of the fine if the property received no additional noise
citations within the next 12 months. Wick stated that staying a portion of the fine would be incentive for
the property owner to further manage the property.
October 11, 2006
Page 7 of 7
Rieke amended the motion to say $ 500.00 of the fine provided that the property does not a
second noise violation in the next 12 months. The amendment was acceptable to Symanietz.
Ayes: Carlbom, Rieke, Symanietz
Nays: Rassier, Wick
Motion Carried 3:2:0
Jovanovich stated that he has researched whether or not the lack of securing the rental licenses ceases
the grandfather use of the property allowing for a non-owner occupied rental unit with eight tenants. He
clarified that the property has not ceased use as a rental property, as it is still being used as a rental unit.
A non-conforming property loses its status when the use ceases for a one year period. Case law has
stated that lack of a license does not cease a non-conforming use. The City can pursue the licensure
issue through the criminal process, as the Ordinance requires all rental property to secure an annual
license. The Council had considerable discussion on the incentive of securing a license if there is not a
consequence for operating a rental without a license. Jovanovich clarified that there is a penalty for not
securing a license, as it is a violation of the Ordinance, which can be fined through the criminal process.
The Council by consensus requested Jovanovich pursue action against the property owner of 29
Minnesota Street East for not securing a rental license.
Adiourn: The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:20 PM.
~-.
/~.~---~~'~ l (dY'I/ltcY il' t.~/
~eyrens
Admionistrator