HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 [04] Apr 14April 14, 2010
Page 1 of 6
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in special session
on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall, opening the meeting with the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Members Present: Mayor Al Rassier, Councilors Dale Wick, Renee Symanietz, Steve Frank, Bob Loso
and City Administrator Judy Weyrens
City Representatives Present: City Engineer Randy Sabart, Finance Director Lori Bartlett, Public Works
Director Terry Thene and City Attorney Tom Jovanovich
Others Present: Rod & Jan Ophoven, Mark Thyen, Gail & Tom Mattocks, Matt & Rachael Lahr, Joel &
Laurie Vogel, Peuringer, Marie Przybilla, Kevin Schirmers, Keith Louwagie, Gerry Klaphake, Larry Hill,
Jim Harlander, Valerie Zabloski, Alban Mohs, Steve Lovold, Kari Salzer
Public Improvement Hearing, 16th Avenue SE: Mayor Rassier opened the public hearing and stated the
purpose of the meeting was to consider the making of an improvement on 16th Avenue SE between a
point 100 feet south of Dale Street E and Minnesota Street E by constructing grading, storm sewer,
bituminous street with concrete curb and gutter, and turf improvements.
Mayor Rassier turned the public hearing over to City Engineer, Randy Sabart. Sabart stated the City
Council will be conducting two hearings during the improvement process and they are as follows:
1. Public Improvement Hearing — Purpose: Present project information and solicit input from
affected property owners. This hearing is conducted to determine if a proposed project will be
designed and let for bids.
2. Assessment Hearing — Purpose: Present project costs to be levied or special assessed. This
hearing is conducted before the bid is awarded.
Sabart stated that the hearing at this time is the Public Improvement Hearing, considering improving the
south end of 16th Avenue NE from Dale Street to Minnesota Street. He stated that the existing street is a
rural roadway design with no curb and gutter and the paved width is 22 feet. He added that the pavement
surface is deteriorated with alligator cracking, which he stated is the worst type of deterioration. With
respect to drainage, Sabart explained a few of the problems which currently exist. Currently, there are
non - uniform ditches with minimal ditch grades on the north end of the street. He added that several of the
driveways have culverts beneath them, but not all. Sabart also stated that there is a cross culvert at the
north end of Dale Street and a small wetland on each side of the street which creates areas of localized
ponding during rain events or sprint melts. Sabart explained that public utilities were previously installed.
As a result, this is simply a street and drainage improvement project. Utility extensions will only be
included if it is requested by the homeowner.
Sabart stated that the Council previously considered four different types of improvements ranging from
mill and overlay to an urban street section complete with curb and gutter. After many meetings and
discussion, the Council has decided the most prudent and long term solution is to reconstruct the street
as an urban section. The improvement will include a 32 foot paved surface with curb and gutter. The
profile may be adjusted in the sense that the roadway may be lowered slightly to match into existing
streets and driveways. There are two typical sections proposed due to the fact that more sand and more
bituminous will be needed between Baker and Dale. If good material is found, they will try to use that;
however, that will not be discovered until construction begins.
He then presented the residents with an opinion of probable costs and the proposed funding for the
project.
32 -foot Wide Urban Section Roadway $804,150
Storm Sewer Improvements $185,050
Total Proposed Project Cost $989,200
Special Assessments (48.8 %) 60% of Urban Roadway Cost
April 14, 2010
Page 2 of 6
City Costs (51.2 %) 40% of Urban Roadway Cost
100% Storm Sewer Improvement Cost
Sabart stated that since the project has not been bid or designed any costs at this meeting are
preliminary in nature and should be considered a best guess. Sabart stated that in determining the
probable costs he used the last bid information for a similar project that was available.
With regard to assessment calculation, street assessments are based on the benefitting front footage.
advised the residents that the assessments are based on benefitting footage . Those with interior lots are
assessed for 100% of the benefitting front footage and corner lots are assessed 100% of the short-side
footage and 50% of the long -side footage. Sabart stated that there are not too many corner lots, if any
that would be affected by the proposed assessments. With respect to the special assessments, Sabart
advised the residents that the payment term and interest rate would be determined by the Council prior to
the Assessment Hearing. In the past, it has been the City's practice to assess 60% and the City subsidy
would be the remaining 40 %. He also stated the Senior and Disability Deferral option that is available to
those who qualify. He stated that they will discuss that in more detail at the Assessment Hearing.
Sabart advised the residents of the preliminary project schedule which will start in April and May of 2010
with final completion by June 2011. Some items that they will deal with during construction include
easements /rights of way and underlying topsoil conditions. Due to the late start, construction may occur
on both ends simultaneously. With that said there may be times when there will be limited access to
driveways. In an effort to keep reasonable slopes, they may need to do some driveway reconstruction
beyond the right -of -way. He concluded by stating that they will finish with some turf restoration.
At this time Mayor Rassier opened the floor to questions from those present.
Kari Salzer approached the Council on behalf of Arlington Place, 21 16th Avenue SE. She stated that she
is concerned about the limited access for residents as well as the deep slope. They need to have
handicap accessibility. Rassier advised Salzer that they will try hard to keep the street open, but there
may be a need for some closure to occur. She added that they need to have access for emergency
vehicles. Sabart advised her that typically emergency vehicles will find an access to travel through. She
questioned Sabart as to the timing of the project to which Sabart replied that they hope to start in
August/September and plan to continue as late as permitted by mother - nature. Salzer questioned
whether the City plans to contract with a local company to which Sabart responded that this will be a
public bid process so we may see contractors from other areas as well. He stated that he cannot
guarantee that a local company will be awarded the bid.
Joel Vogel, 212 16t`' Avenue SE, approached the Council to discuss the proposed improvements. He
began by stating that Sabart gave a good presentation of the proposed project. Vogel first questioned
Sabart as to the tonnage of the road to which he responded that it will be a light 9 -ton design which
means that the road can accommodate just fewer than 300 heavy commercial vehicle trips per day. Vogel
stated that he was under the impression that once the soil borings were complete, more residential
meetings would have been held prior to getting to this point. Vogel then questioned the need for a 9 -ton
road. He stated that he counted all of the roads going north and south in St. Joseph and all of them are
labeled as 5 -ton roads. He asked the Council to respectfully consider this a 7 -ton rather than a 9 -ton road.
If this road (16th Avenue) is constructed as a 9 -ton roadway, he questioned where heavy trucks will go
once they get to the other end, as the roads that intersect are all 5 -ton roadways. He then added that he
believes that the township should pay for a portion of the costs. In addition, Vogel stated that the road
was destroyed by Signature Homes when they built their development. He questioned, if the farmers
didn't destroy the road and the homeowners didn't destroy the road, why are the residents responsible for
paying for a road that the developer destroyed. He understands the City had a bond for the project with
the developer but the bond is not bank worthy. Vogel further stated that the value of their homes are not
increasing, rather they are decreasing. He was not saying that they do not need a new road, rather he is
asking for fairness as to how this is to be paid for.
April 14, 2010
Page 3 of 6
Vogel stated that he is asking the Council to consider assessing the project four ways: Residential
landowners, Commercial landowners, City of St. Joseph, and St. Joseph Township. He also asked the
Council to consider reducing the width of the proposed street from 32 feet to 28 feet. In conclusion, he
stated that the Council has three options available to them: approve the proposed improvement, reduce
the proposed improvement or reject the proposed improvement. He only has two options: contact his
financial institution to find a way to pay for the improvement or contact his attorney to see about the
appeals process and see how long this project can be tied up for. Rassier responded to Vogel and stated
that he has never told anyone not to what they think is the right thing to do. If he feels that an appeal is
the right thing to do, no one can tell him not to do that. He advised the Council, Staff and residents, that
he recently attended the Township meeting and discussed the option of the Township helping out with
some of the costs for the project. He stated that he has not heard back yet, but was told that they would
discuss this. He added that he was advised that a mill and overlay project was done on the south half of
the road, which he stated he was unaware of. Vogel then questioned whether a reclaim should be done
instead. Rassier replied that it would be a shame not to construct the street to City standards.
Sabart presented a map showing the different street designs within the City and explained the difference
between a 7 -ton and a 9 -ton road. Many of the roads are designated as 5 -ton to reduce large traffic
through residential neighborhoods. So while many of the streets are marked 5 -ton, they are designed to
accommodate 7 or 9 ton. Designing the streets as 7 or 9 ton also tends to increase longevity and
performance. Vogel questioned whether a traffic count was completed on 16th Avenue to determine the
volume of traffic. Sabart replied that they have not completed such a study but models are available to
assist with road design. In addition, the south end of the project contains poor soils and industry
standards assert certain pavement sections perform better over time. With all the factors considered the
best road design for 16th Avenue is a 9 ton road.
Vogel questioned whether there is any consideration for Signature Homes to contribute towards the
improvement cost. Jovanovich replied that their bond would not cover a claim against them. They would
have to go against the liability insurer. He added that the City's insurance would pay only if it were a result
of the City's negligence.
Rassier advised the residents that the proposed 60/40 split is not the normal assessment policy. He
added that he has heard from several residents on Hill Street who are upset that they had to pay 100% of
the assessments. Vogel stated that he would like to see the assessments to be lowered. In response,
Sabart stated that we may see some lower bids due to the competitive market. Frank stated that the
Council previously discussed some joint projects. Sabart stated that this could be combined with another
project. Currently there are no other projects, so that would not be an option unless this is deferred for a
few years to when the Park Terrace Improvements are done. The question is whether or not the road can
last a few more years to which Sabart and Public Works say probably not. Sabart added that the market
will improve and contractors will then try to make up for lost ground. Weighing all of those concerns, he
stated that this is a sizable project and will gain a lot of interest resulting in competitive bidding.
Gerry Klaphake, 252 16th Avenue SE approached the Council and questioned the following relating to
curbing:
• What is the breakdown of the cost for curbing?
• How necessary is curbing?
Sabart responded by stating that curb and gutter help to define a barrier for parking or traveling on
roadways. They also help to convey drainage and protect the edge of the pavement. He estimates the
cost of curbing to be approximately $11 /foot. Klaphake stated that there are a lot of upscale communities
that he has visited that do not have curb and gutter. For example, in West St. Cloud, the new addition
near Cypress does not have curbing. He stated that one of the reasons is that these are large lots and it
was cost prohibitive. According to Klaphake, it is nice to do things the right way; however, these are tough
economic times. In response, Sabart stated that he was the design engineer for that project and stated
that he is familiar as to why they chose not to construct curb and gutter. This was an annexation area and
the annexation between the City of St. Cloud and St. Cloud Township is very contentious. Because of the
significant costs of extending sewer and water to that area, the curb and gutter was not added unless
April 14, 2010
Page 4 of 6
there was a petition from the property owners stating that they wanted curb and gutter. The City did not
assess those residents for the reconstruction of the street. Sabart stated that some of the neighborhoods
did petition for curb and gutter. He added that, in that neighborhood, the streets are flat and there are a lot
of concerns about water ponding. Klaphake stated the he can live without a curb and asked the Council to
reconsider the need for curb and gutter. Wick questioned whether or not the project can be designed with
that as an option. Sabart stated that the City has already made the commitment to go to an urban street
section of which curb and gutter is part of that section. Although there are some areas where curbing is
not critical, the concern is south of Baker Street up to Dale Street. In that area, there is a significant
gradient and the runoff from yards and streets will pick up velocity and he is concerned about eroding of
the pavement edge between the grass and the pavement. He re- stated that this is most important south
of Baker.
Mark Thyen, 304 16th Avenue SE, approached the Council to question how this will affect the wetland
adjacent to his property. According to Sabart, they do not plan to affect the wetland. There will be a
culvert placed underneath the road to keep things draining the other way. Sabart stated that they will
need to maintain the drainage from the east to the west. Thyen also questioned his well that was recently
re -done. The well was there when he bought the home and it is approximately 30' from the center of the
road. He questioned if he will need to pay for it if it needs to be moved or closed. Sabart stated that if
improvements made by the property owner are in the public right -of -way, the homeowner would be
responsible. On a side note, Thyen requested that a four -way stop be added to the south of him at the
corner of 16th Avenue SE and Dale Street. He stated that widening the road will help, but speed is also an
issue in this area. Rassier advised the residents that this would be addressed by the Police Department
and Public Works.
There was also some question as to whether or not the right -of -way will be widened. Wick stated that
some properties do not have a defined ROW. Sabart stated that they are not looking for ROW or
easements wider than 66'. He added that they may need to get a temporary easement only for
construction purposes. According to Sabart, MN Statute allows cities to define ROW through a
prescriptive easement. If the ROW is not included in their legal description, Wick questioned whether or
not that would be discussed with the affected property owner. Jovanovich stated that the prescriptive
ROW is determined by the road, ditch and backslope. If the ROW is not included in the legal description
and there are improvements in the ROW, that would need to be negotiated with the property owner.
Jovanovich added that the Court will find that the ROW is up to where the backslope is and added that
the City does not have a right to go beyond the backslope. Sabart stated that their motivation is to make
the slope look nice. Often times, they will ask permission to grade a portion of the property to make it look
nice as well as make it mowable.
Valerie Zabloski, 226 16th Avenue SE, approached the Council and questioned whether they will know the
sloping prior to the project beginning. Sabart stated that they would hope to have that information
available to share during the neighborhood meeting that will take place prior to construction. Weyrens
advised the residents that a notice will be sent and each resident is given a time to meet with the
engineer to discuss concerns relating to the project.
Janet Ophoven, 247 16th Avenue SE, approached the Council to question whether or not culverts would
remain in place. Sabart replied that if curb and gutter is constructed, then the culverts would be removed;
however, if this is constructed as a rural section, the culverts would remain in place.
Gail Maddox, 229 16th Avenue SE, spoke to the Council stated that she hopes that those questions and
issues raised by Mr. Vogel are addressed. She also questioned if there are any plans for 16th Avenue to
go anywhere. Rassier advised the residents that the Transportation Plan shows two major corridors, a
north /south corridor and an east/west corridor. He added that 12th Avenue SE, 16th Avenue SE, 7th
Avenue SE, and 4th Avenue SE may eventually connect with a possible "Field Street ". The City's
Transportation Plan shows 16th Avenue SE as a neighborhood residential street. Maddox stated that, on
her side, there is no ditch and she does not fully understand the issue of right -of -way. Rassier advised her
that it may be included in her legal description. In addition to an early comment made by Thyen, policing
of the area can be done now as there are issues with the amount of traffic and speed in the area.
April 14, 2010
Page 5 of 6
Symanietz made a motion to close the Public Hearing at 8:15PM. The motion was seconded by
Wick and passed unanimously.
Rassier re- stated that he did go to the Township on Monday night to ask for assistance and they did not
say yes or no; however, they will discuss it again at their next meeting. They expressed their concern as
to whether the township residents will be benefitting from the project. He stated that they do not have to
partner with the City on this project. Once the improvement is ordered, if the township would make a
decision to partner, it would only change the final figures. Sabart advised Rassier that he would like that
information prior to July.
Rassier stated that the Council needs to decide if this is the scope of the project and, if so, order the
improvement and advertise for bids. If this is not the scope that the Council chooses, they need to change
the scope, order the improvement and advertise for bids based on the revised scope.
Wick questioned Sabart as to the width of the private streets in Liberty Pointe and Graceview. Sabart
stated that he did not have the Graceview information available, but stated that the private streets in
Liberty Pointe are 24' wide. Wick and Rassier both agreed that those streets are just not working for the
City. Sabart added that the public streets in Liberty Pointe, such as 18`h Avenue SE and Constitution
Drive (17th Avenue SE), are 32' -36' wide. Frank stated that the definition of "not working" is in the eye of
the beholder. The comment was made that in some areas the road is either widened or narrowed to force
the traffic to slow down. Sabart replied that those are called traffic calming elements. Sabart then added
that pavement width is often related to off - street parking. Streets that are 32' wide generally allow for
parking on one side and those that are 36' would generally allow for parking on both sides. Streets less
than 32' wide would, in most cases, not allow for off - street parking. Rassier stated that he does not want
to go to that size road based on past projects. Symanietz clarified that with a 32' roadway, they would be
allowed to park on one side of the street to which Sabart agreed. He then stated that with a 24' or 28'
road, they could chose an alternative method of a drive -over curb to allow parking; however, then people
are beginning to park on the grassy areas. According to Sabart, they are trying to balance all of those
things along with accommodating drainage.
Symanietz questioned the placement of mailboxes and whether or not that is the property owner's
responsibility. Sabart replied that they are typically taken down during construction and temporary
mailboxes are set up so residents can continue to get their mail. He added that the decision as to where
to put them after construction is governed by the Postmaster. Frank stated that the Postmaster generally
wants them on one side of the street.
Loso made a motion to authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute Resolution 2010 -010:
Ordering the Improvement and Preparation of Plans for 16th Avenue SE. The motion was seconded
by Wick.
Discussion: Wick questioned item #4 on the proposed resolution which states that "the city
council declares its official intent to reimburse itself for the costs of the improvement from the proceeds of
the tax exempt bond." He questioned whether that needs to include language for storm sewer. Weyrens
stated that it has been the intent to issue the bond for the entire amount.
Frank stated that he is not sure that all of the questions and concerns have been fully addressed.
For example, he stated that his preference would be a 32' road with full curb and gutter, possibly even
sidewalks. He; however, stated that he does not believe that we have to put in all curb and gutter.
According to Frank, when they discussed the Comprehensive Plan, there were several different scenarios
shown with a lot of different combinations for curb and gutter. As previously, discussed the smaller curbs
may be cheaper for the residents. There has been a lot of discussion and more information is being
brought up. He would like to make sure that the drainage issues are addressed as well as clearing up the
slope of the ditches. Loso advised Frank that those types of things would be addressed during the design
process. Frank replied that there is still time to address those issues.
April 14, 2010
Page 6 of 6
With respect to the concerns regarding damage incurred by the Contractor, Rassier stated that he
agrees with Jovanovich that the ability to assess the contractor seems slim. He added that staff can follow
up with that. There was a comment made regarding the drop in home values. Rassier commented that he
doesn't know how one would value what this project does to a home's value with the times the way they
are. The need for curb and gutter is a legitimate question although he stated that he believes that, due to
the slope of the road, drainage improvements need to be constructed at the same time.
Sabart commented that he previously stated that the cost of curb and gutter is approximately
$11 /foot. He stated that his presentation considered an urban section. He advised the Council and the
residents that, if the curb and gutter is not constructed, there would be additional grading expenses and
turf expenses. In addition, Sabart stated that rural sections include slopes and ditches as well as more
right -of -way. In conclusion, Sabart stated that, if curb and gutter is not constructed, residents will see a
savings, but it will not be the full $11.
Wick stated that there are still some questions as far as design, although most of them have
already been answered. The main concern of the residents is cost and he stated that we will not know
that until the design phase is complete and the bids are received. Wick stated that we need to get the
design phase completed and get the advertisement for bids out there. If we wait too long for the design
phase, it will push the entire project into next year. According to Wick, if that happens, who knows what
will happen, the costs may be higher.
Frank stated that another issue that was addressed was that of precedent. He too, has heard
from other residents up on Hill Street who say that this is not fair as they were assessed 100 %. He stated
that by assessing this project the way it was presented, we are setting a precedent and the City should
keep this going. He stated that he is willing to support this, but understands that other neighbors already
paid their share. Rassier stated that the assessment policy in the past has been that, if it is the first time in
which the street is being worked on after annexation, they are assessed 100 %. With this project, they are
going with a 60/40 split which is the standard for streets already within the City. Frank questioned if the
project can be stopped once the bids are received.
Frank then questioned the possibility of looking at an alternative curb design. Sabart advised
Frank that the costs are similar for a barrier curb versus a drive -over curb. The question is whether this is
going to be constructed as a rural section or a rural section and what the desired street width is. Frank
also addressed the issue of the 9 -ton road. Sabart stated that that was based on the amount of
commercial and agricultural activity and is consistent with the streets already built and how they are
performing. He added that there would be a cost savings to construct a thinner pavement section, but the
savings would be marginal. Frank questioned Sabart as to the cost difference between a 32' vs. 28' urban
design. Sabart stated that he did not have an exact dollar amount, but stated that they would sacrifice
parking. Rassier added that there has been some concern from people walking in that area as well.
Weyrens advised the Council that the Resolution states ordering the improvement; however, what
it does is authorizes the engineer to design the project and prepare the bid documents. The project is not
actually ordered until the bids are accepted. Up to that point, the City has only incurred engineering and
staff costs.
The motion passed unanimously.
Adjourn: Symanietz made a motion to adjourn at 8:40; seconded by Wick and passed unanimously.
SLY
J d Weyris�'
d inistrator