Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[04a] Minutes • CITY OFNT.JC1%IPH Council Agenda Item 4 (a) MEETING DATE: August 5, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: Minutes — Requested Action: Approve the Council minutes of July 8 and July 12, 2010 SUBMITTED BY: Administration BOARD /COMMISSION /COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT: $ ATTACHMENTS: Request for Council Action 4(a):1 -2 Minutes of July 8, 2010 4(a):3 -8 Minutes of July 12, 2010 4(a):9 -12 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the minutes of July 8 and July 12, 2010 4(a):1 July 8, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 7:OOPM 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 Police Chief Pete Jansky Others Present: Samantha Bushey Public Comments: No one present wished to speak. Approval of the Agenda: Symanietz made a motion to approve the agenda with the following changes /deletions: Delete 4g Human Rights Appointment Move 4a Minutes The motion was seconded by Loso and passed unanimously. Consent Agenda: Wick made a motion to approve the consent agenda as follows: a. Moved for discussion. b. Bills Payable — Approve check numbers 042999 -043071 and EFT numbers 000421- 000431. c. Transfers — Authorize the 2010 Operating Transfers. d. Donations — Accept the donations and their purposes as presented. e. Election Judges — Appoint Election Judges for the August 10 State Primary and November 2 State General Elections. f. Work Comp Deductible — Authorize staff to notify the insurance carrier of establishing the Work Comp Deductible at $2,500 per occurrence. g. Deleted The motion was seconded by Symanietz. Discussion: Wick clarified that the bills paid to Astech did not include the $12,000 for the seal coating along CR121. Bartlett stated that was correct. The motion passed unanimously. Minutes: Wick questioned the minutes of June 17, 2010 relating to the seal coating of CR121. The minutes state that "Rassier and Loso both commented that it would be irresponsible not to seal coat the entire road to which the Council concurred ". Wick did not feel as though the Council concurred on that. According to Rassier, although Wick may not have agreed, there was a consensus amongst the Council. Symanietz agreed with Wick and stated that they did not talk about where the funds would come from. Loso stated that it was his understanding that the City would go ahead with the seal coating and get more information from the Council regarding the timeline for this project and a reason as to why the City was not notified earlier. Wick questioned how the City could spend $12,500 without a vote. Symanietz was concerned about the fact that there wasn't even a final cost provided to the City. Frank advised the Council that he went along with the project because he felt as though the City didn't have a choice. He, too, was not sure that there was consensus. According to Frank, this project came up at the last second. Sabart agreed and stated that crews would have been done with the work prior to the next Council meeting and, as a result, there was not much time allowed for discussion. Wick suggested that the city nail down a process with the County. It was stated that the County does not have a written policy for how these types of situations are handled. He added that he visited the County 4(a):3 July 8, 2010 Page 2 of 6 Website and it does not appear that this was ithin their five year plans for road maintenance. Wick also questioned who would be responsible for painting the crosswalks. Sabart stated that it is the understanding that the County would be responsible for the crosswalks; however, the City would be responsible for the painting of the parking stalls. Symanietz questioned Weyrens as to where the funds will come from. Weyrens responded that this will be budgeted for with the 2011 budget. Frank suggested that they go on record, as a Council, to object as to how this was done and that letters be sent to the County Engineer, the County Administrator as well as the County Board Members to explain the City's strong displeasure as to how this was handled. He stated that this is not how units of government should be working together. He suggested that a draft letter be presented to the City Council for approval. Rassier advised Frank and the other Council members that other local cities have been having similar issues. Sabart and Weyrens have been working with the County regarding this and they have asked that if the County changes their road plans, they should speak with the Cities involved. Sabart reminded the Council that this is considered maintenance rather than part of the County's actual road plan. Weyrens concluded by stating that the City has not yet conceded that this is our responsibility. Wick made a motion to amend the minutes of June 17, 2010 removing the statement "to which the Council concurred. The motion was seconded by Symanietz. The minutes will read "Rassier and Loso both commented that it would be irresponsible not to seal coat the entire road ". Ayes: Wick, Symanietz, Frank Nays: Rassier, Loso Motion Carried 3:2:0 FINANCE REPORTS 2009 TIF Reports: Bartlett reported that the City is required to submit annual TIF Reports to the State Auditor. Currently, there are three TIF districts within the City: • Borgert Products — This district was decertified on September 22, 2009 and thus this is the last year for reporting. Bartlett stated that this district had a $0 balance at the end of the year. • St. Joseph Development (Vic West) — This district will decertify in 2012 and had a healthy balance this year of $34,000. • Millstream Shops & Lofts — According to Bartlett, this is the first year for reporting and there is a balance of $472. Since this is the first year, they haven't yet realized the full value of construction. The 2010 Tax Increment will be much higher and this district is due to decertify in 2034. Wick made a motion to accept the 2009 TIF Reports as presented. The motion was seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. Treasurer's Report: Bartlett provided the Council with a brief overview of the City's cash position. She stated that the cash balance is down approximately $85,000 since the beginning of the year and explained that that is due primarily to spending down the working capital reserves. She added that the cash balance includes the 70% tax settlement. The remaining 30 %, along with the first half of LGA, will be received in July. She advised the Council that the City's cash position represents 2'/ months of the year's expenditures. With respect to the various funds, Bartlett explained that the General Fund expenditures were spent down approximately 47% and approximately 23% of the budget revenue has been received. She explained that the Enterprise Funds show greater expenses than revenues and that is due to the fact that the City has received only 4 months of revenue, but incurred 6 months of expenses. Bartlett added that there has not been a lot of capital expenditures as most of the capital items purchased have been purchased through the equipment certificate. There is a balance of approximately $60,000 in the equipment certificate; but she stated that most of that will be spend down in July as we are beginning to receive those invoices. 4(a):4 July 8, 2010 Page 3 of 6 Frank made a motion to accept the financial reports as presented. The motion was seconded by Wick. Discussion: Frank questioned where the funds will come from to pay for the 16 Avenue SE Improvements. It was stated that the funds will come from the Stormwater Fund. Frank questioned the balance in that account. Weyrens stated that the balance is $302,000. Frank added that he, along with a few other Council members, attended the League meeting at which they stated that every Minnesota City will be in a severe budget crisis by 2015. He stated that the City will need to be a little more diligent and they may need to look at more of the micro items as well. He questioned Jansky as to whether or not it would be better to have another officer rather than pay the overtime that is currently being paid to the current officers. Jansky advised the Council that much of that overtime is reimbursed through State or Federal grants. Bartlett added that some of the overtime is also due to special projects and holidays and, as a result, that overtime would be there regardless. Weyrens stated that the Council has recently been talking a lot about the budget process and, in the past, they have discussed bidding out the consultant services. She questioned whether the Council would like to do one each year or whether they want to bid all of them on an annual basis. Loso stated he would like to bid each service every year. Rassier stated that it cannot hurt to bid all of them, as our current consultants would most likely re -bid. Loso commented that cheaper is not always better. The motion passed unanimously. ENGINEER/PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR REPORTS 16 Avenue SE, Bid Results: Sabart reported that the City opened bids for the 16 Avenue SE Improvement project. There were 8 bids received. The low bidder was JR Ferche of Rice, MN with a bid of $550,416.85. He added that there was some stiff competition and aggressive pricing. The good news is that the construction costs came in lower than originally estimated. Sabart reminded the Council that there were several assessment options that were discussed. The Council chose option 1 B. Based on that option, Sabart provided information relating to the project costs. The preliminary cost that was originally presented was $989,200; whereas, after bid opening the projected final cost is $808,617. He presented the breakdown as follows: 32' Wide Urban Section Roadway $608,341 • 60% Special Assessments $365,005 • 40% City Cost $243,337 1" Water Service $ 1,465 Storm Sewer Improvements $198,811 • 100% City Cost $198,811 TOTAL PROJECT COST $808,617 Based on that breakdown, 45.1 % of the project cost will be paid through special assessments and 54.7% will be the City's responsibility. Sabart stated that there is one property owner that is requesting to have City services installed and they would be responsible for paying 100% of those costs ($1,465). The assessment rate is calculated at $90.16/front footage. Frank questioned whether or not Sabart, or his firm, has worked with this contractor in the past. Sabart replied that they have done a fair amount of work in the area and they have been around for a while. He added that he feels this is a confident firm and he believes that they are a responsible bidder. Weyrens added that JR Ferche did a project in St. Joseph in 2000 [Northland Drive] and there were no issues. 4(a):5 July 8, 2010 Page 4 of 6 Weyrens advised the Council that they will receive packets prior to the Assessment Hearing showing the impact of the bid results. It was questioned whether the residents would receive a new assessment notice to which it was suggested that new notices be prepared and hand delivered to the residents prior to the meeting. Sabart stated that the information presented will be the same information that will be used to prepare the information for the assessment hearing. He added that the assessment hearing is the last time at which residents will have the option to appeal their assessment. By conducting the assessment hearing first, the Council can be more confident when awarding the bid. Wick questioned some of the individual charges for sanitary sewer and water mains. Sabart advised the Council that some of the manholes and fire hydrants may need to be adjusted due to grading issues. When services were constructed, the road was not cut open. They are taking some precautionary measures as there may be some issues when installing the storm sewer. Wick clarified that the costs for the 1" water service are separate from the assessment rates to which Sabart agreed. Frank stated that he has received emails from a few residents on Hill Street regarding issues that arose after the project was completed. He questioned how the City and the Contractor can minimize the chances of that happening. Sabart stated that project newsletters are sent out letting the residents know what is going on and to make them aware of how long the warranty period is on certain services. Rassier stated that it is best for residents to let the City know right away if something is not right or they have concerns. The sooner staff is notified, the better. Seal Coating: Sabart stated that this was previously discussed during the discussion regarding the minutes of June 17. Frank commented that the layer looks much thicker than most residential streets. Sabart responded that this is the type of seal coating that is typically done on County Roads and Highways with heavier traffic. It is coated on two sides, which is a newer approach to seal coating and is proven to be more suitable for heavy volume roads. POLICE CHIEF REPORTS — No Report Parades: Frank stated that he is aware of the fact that it is against City Ordinance to throw candy in the parade. He recently became aware of the fact that other cities have Ordinances relating to horses. Jansky stated that staff can look into that. EDA REPORT Streetscape /Landscape Plan: Wick stated that the purpose of the presentation is to bring the Council up to date on the beautification project within the City. He stated that Scenic Specialties was brought in to help prepare the plan. There were three main goals: • Promote Downtown Revitalization • Tie the Wobegon Trail Center to Downtown and to the new County Road 2 • Let people (property owners /donors) an idea of what "could be" Some of the expected outcomes include giving pedestrian visual clues as to how to get downtown, soften hardscapes at intersections such as County Road 75 /College Avenue and Minnesota Street/College Avenue, Promote lingering in downtown and solicit participation and raise funds for the project. So far, the process included contracting with Scenic Specialties to come up with a plan, taking a walking tour of the project area, develop concepts and presenting those concepts to the EDA and refining them prior to presenting the final plan to the EDA. Wick stated that they plan to meet with the property owners after presenting the information to the Council. Wick stated that the plan consists of some key concepts such as: • Reflect the skyline from the water tower throughout the project. • Consistent color palette • Consistent lettering • Repetition in plant species throughout the area 4(a):6 July 8, 2010 Page 5 of 6 • Perception of vertical space in built up areas downtown with voids in building wall • Places of interest where people can linger • Visual interest, soothing landscapes, sounding of running water, information signage • Soften the volume of concrete, bituminous at intersections: median plantings, pedestrian and vehicular separation, places for pedestrians to rest • Traffic calming influences • Sense of place /location Wick stated that the purpose of this presentation was to spur discussion. The full report will be available on the website. Rassier stated that he spoke with Terry Thene, Public Works Director, about the beautification that has already been done within the City to make sure that everyone is on board and to ensure that what we have is usable and not dying. Wick added that discussions need to take place with the property owners. Rassier stated that the next step is to work with the public and other interested groups. He added that this is not a project that the City can fund at this time, but we can work to get donations of money or in -kind labor. Symanietz suggested that this report be presented to the Park Board as she feels that it would be good for them to see what is going on. Wick advised Symanietz that this is not parkland. Rassier added that this is just a concept. When it gets further along, it will be brought to the other committees. Most of the area that is being looked at is private property and the EDA is unsure as to whether or not these different entities are willing to work with the City. Loso commented that this process is similar to a process that was done in the early 90's. The City spent $40- 50,000 on a project to be a Star City. He stated that the same language is being use and this is the same process. That project went nowhere. Rassier advised Loso that the last thing we need to do is assume that things will not happen. He stated that hopefully attitudes have changed and things will get better. He added that it will not happen overnight, but is hopeful that things will start happening. Loso stated that the ideas aren't bad, but in reality things just don't happen. Rassier disagreed and stated that this could happen as there are many people who are willing to work with the City to make things happen. Frank questioned the process for this type of study. He stated that what the Council received is simply a "cliff note" of the actual report. As a Council member, he expects that the Council would receive a copy of the full report. He added that he feels as though the Council, not the EDA, should make this type of determination. Rassier advised Frank that the EDA was given the task to look at the beautification of the downtown area. The purpose of the presentation was to give the Council an overview of where the EDA was at prior to making the full report public. He stated that the full report will be available online. Frank also stated that he agreed with Symanietz that there are other partners. He questioned staff as to whether or not this was presented to the Planning Commission. Frank stated that the City has a Park Board and we have spent a lot of money on a Master Park Plan. He believes that the various City Boards, Commissions and other interest groups should be made aware of this as a lot of them have spent time and money on beautification projects. He added that the Chamber should be contacted as well. Rassier advised Frank that there is a clear difference between the Master Park Plan and Downtown Revitalization. They do not plan to change any of the parks. Rassier stated that the main goal is to work on bringing people to downtown. Frank questioned the crossing of County Road 75 at College Avenue. Rassier replied that they plan to work with the County to work on the timing of the lights, etc. Frank suggested the countdown timers which Wick says are already installed at 4th Avenue. Frank questioned whether sales tax funds could be used for such and Weyrens stated that they could not as most of the area is private property. ADMINISTRATOR REPORTS Staff Request: Weyrens stated that one of the employees will be taking some time off for short-term disability and she is requesting to hire a temporary staff person for that time. 4(a):7 • July 8, 2010 Page 6 of 6 Frank made a motion to allow the hiring of a temporary staff person to fill a short-term vacancy. The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. MAYOR REPORTS — No Report COUNCIL REPORTS FRANK Budget: Frank stated that when looking forward to preparing the budget, they need to be aware of the State's shortfall. Al agreed that they need to look at the budget from a different perspective this year. WICK Millstream Arts Festival: Wick advised the Council that the road closure request was approved by the County. He stated that they will work with the County, Jansky and Thene to work out the details. LMC Conference: Wick reported that he attended the League conference. He stated that the speakers spoke with some optimism, but with caution. SYMAN I ETZ LMC Conference: Symanietz stated that she attended the League conference as well. She felt that the turnout was good and added that next year's conference will be held in Rochester. Weeds: Symanietz questioned who is responsible for cutting the weeds at homes that are in foreclosure. Weyrens advised the Council that weed notices are sent out and they are given 10 days to mow the lawn. After that, the City has someone hired to mow the lawn. The process could take up to 20 days. If residents have concerns about weeds, they should call the City Offices and the weed inspector will inspect the site and start the process, if it is in violation of the Ordinance. Street Lights: Frank advised residents that if they notice that a street Tight it out, they should call City Hall to report it and staff will have it taken care of. Adjourn: Symanietz made a motion to adjourn at 8:20PM; seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. Judy Weyrens Administrator 4(a):8 July 12, 2010 Page 1of3 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in special session on Monday, July 12, 2010 at 6:30PM 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 Others Present: Tom Klein, Mark Thyen, Bill & Judy Barg, Marie Przybilla, Samantha Bushey, Steve & Cindy Lovold, Al & Ralandine Mohs, Matt & Rachel Lahr, Rod & Jan Ophoven, Evelyn Peuringer, Joel Vogel, Kevin Schirmers, Keith Louwagie 16 Avenue SE Improvements: Rassier stated that the purpose of the meeting is to conduct the assessment hearing and consider awarding the bid for the 16 Avenue SE Improvement Project. Sabart stated that the assessment hearing is the second of the two public hearings that the City is required to conduct. The public improvement hearing was conducted in April and the purpose of that hearing was to discuss the merits of the proposed improvements. The purpose of the assessment hearing is to present the project costs to be assessed to the benefitting property owners. With respect to the project, Sabart discussed the project costs, both the preliminary and final numbers. The preliminary cost estimates that were presented in April totaled $989,200; whereas, the final number, as of July 12, is only $808,617. According to Sabart, the City received some attractive bids and the face value of the contract is approximately $150,000 below the estimated cost which resulted in reduced project costs. Sabart advised the Council and the residents that the project will be funded as such: Special Assessments $366,469 City — General $243,337 City — Storm Sewer Utility $198,811 Total Project Cost $808,617 Of the total project costs, Sabart stated that approximately 45.3% will be funded through special assessments and 54.7% would be City costs. Sabart explained that the assessments are based on benefitting footage. When determining the benefitting footage, those with interior lots are assessed at 100% of the benefitting front footage and those with corner lots are billed at 100% of the short side footage and 50% of the long side footage. The assessments were based on 60% of the costs being assessed and the remaining 40% being the City's portion. He added that residents will have the option to pay for the assessments over a period of time up to 15 years with an interest rate of 5.5 %. That amount would be added to their property tax statement. He advised the residents that they can choose to pay the entire assessment prior to October 31, 2010 with no interest. Weyrens added that they can pay any portion of the assessment prior to that date without interest. Residents can also pay the entire assessment prior to November 15, 2010; however, two months of interest would be added. The remaining balance can be paid at anytime; however, interest will accrue through December 31 of that year. Frank questioned whether there are other options for the term of the assessment. Weyrens stated that the City also looked at a 10 year bond and the interest rate would be 5 %, but the principal amount would increase. It becomes more of an affordability issue to spread the payments out over 15 years; however, Weyrens stated that it is up to the Council if they wish to change the terms. Sabart advised the residents that there are deferral options for seniors and those with disabilities. The criteria for the deferral are outlined in Ordinance 38. He explained that the City has forms that would need to be completed and financial information would need to be disclosed. The Council would make the final finding as to whether or not the deferral would be approved. He also advised them that the interest would still accrue during the deferral period. Loso questioned whether there are guidelines for the Council to use 4(a):9 July 12, 2010 Page 2 of 3 when reviewing an application for such a deferral. Weyrens stated that there are federal guidelines that must be followed as well as income qualifications. According to Sabart, the City has maintained the project schedule so far. If the Council awards the bid after the hearing, the contractor would potentially be able to begin work the first week in August. This would better the schedule by a couple of weeks. Rassier opened the Public Hearing. [Line 23] Mayor Rassier read a letter that was received from William and Judy Barg, 231 16 Avenue SE, in opposition to their proposed assessments. The letter indicated that their property did not abut 16 Avenue SE yet they were being assessed for 200'. [Line 20] Rodney Ophoven, 247 16"' Avenue SE, approached the Council and questioned some wetland land located along 16 Avenue. He questioned as to whether or not the remaining homeowners would be responsible for absorbing the costs if the property owner were to turn that wetland land over to the City. Sabart stated that they would not. He explained that the assessable footage for the Rodgers property [line 191 takes into account what they have for wetland and what is actually buildable property. [Line 10] Joel Vogel, 212 16 Avenue SE, approached the Council to ask some questions regarding the proposed assessments. He questioned whether or not they took into consideration whether a property is used as commercial vs. residential. Rassier advised Vogel that there are only two commercial properties and they were assessed based on their benefitting footage, in the same manner as everyone else. Vogel clarified that the road was to be constructed as a 9 -ton road to accommodate those businesses and was under the impression that this was the only 9 -ton road in the City. Although the posted weight limits are Tess, Sabart advised Vogel that all streets within the City are constructed as either a 7 or 9 -ton road. The posted limits are less as a precautionary measure. Vogel questioned whether or not the City talked to the Township about possibly paying for a portion of the costs to which Rassier stated that they said "no ". Sabart advised Vogel that the commercial properties to pay a higher tax rate than residential properties. Loso questioned whether or not there is a statute for assessing properties to which Sabart responded that the Cities cannot differentiate between commercial and residential properties, they must be assessed uniformly. Frank questioned the terms of the assessments. He stated that most people would like the 15 year option rather than the 10, and stated that they can pay the assessment balance off at any time to avoid any additional interest. Weyrens advised Frank that the City has always chosen the 15 year option. Staff ran the 10 year option as well to see how the difference in bond rates would affect the project costs. Symanietz made a motion to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Frank and passed unanimously. [Line 23] With reference to the property owned by William & Judy Barg, 231 16 Avenue SE, Wick questioned how their assessment was calculated if they have no abutting footage. Sabart stated that this property is unique by comparison as the principal access is from 16 Avenue and it doesn't have access to any other City street. He stated that there is drainage from the roadway and it is his opinion that storm sewer, along with curb and gutter, will make improvements to the gravel road which is currently being used as their driveway. The short side of this parcel is the side parallel to 16 Avenue. Sabart stated that Marrick Development owns the adjoining property; however, that lot is not being assessed due to the fact that the property is not "buildable ". Wick questioned how other cities handle these types of properties. Sabart stated that he is aware of the fact that the City of St. Cloud does not have a policy for this type of situation. According to Sabart, it would be very rare that there would be this type of arrangement. The question arose as to whether or not this is a City Street. Sabart replied that, based on the County documents, this is not a public roadway. Sabart added that those property owners who live on intersections are not assessed as intersections are part of the construction project costs. Barg questioned who will take care of the water up to his property line. Currently, this property has City sewer service, but does not yet have City water. A water stub has been extended to the Marrick property, but service has not yet been run to serve that structure. Sabart stated that he is unaware of the arrangements that have been made with Marrick Development. Loso questioned where the property's 4(a):10 July 12, 2010 Page 3 of 3 sewer access is located to which Sabart stated that it is in their backyard. Barg advised the Council that he inquired about running City water when Pond View Ridge was developed. Rassier stated that, in this particular case, there could be a change made to the proposed assessment. Barg stated that they are charging them as well as the property in front of theirs. Rassier suggested that they be assessed for 66' since they are using the Marrick property to access their property. Barg stated that he was told years ago that this was a City street. According to Rassier, he thinks it would be the most fair if they were assessed the 66' rather than the 208.72'. Although Rassier likes to hear from the residents, he advised Barg that the Public Hearing has been closed. He added that he has their letter and he feels that he has a clear picture of what they are asking for. Sabart stated that it appears that both of the abutting properties also access their properties in the back from that access road. Sabart added that, at this point, any reduction in the assessment to this property would be the City's responsibility. He also stated that if the Council is comparing access and lot size, there are some comparables that are seeing similar assessments. According to Rassier, the only difference is that this piece of property is not directly on 16 Avenue SE; rather they only have access to 16 from the driveway through the Marrick property. Frank stated that residents should keep in mind that this is the first time that the storm sewer costs have been funded 100% through City funds. He, as well as others, has been questioned why this was not done the same way for others. He added that he thinks this is a good use, but just wants the residents to keep in mind that the City is already helping them out to reduce their costs. Wick questioned what the proposed assessment would be based on the 66' footage. Sabart stated that it would be approximately $5,956. Loso stated that Mr. Barg is willing to pay half of the proposed footage, so he suggested using 104'. Weyrens questioned the average lot size in this area. Sabart stated that the average benefitting footage is 121.4' based on those properties listed on the assessment roll. Wick stated that, by assessing this property at the 104', they are still double counting. Wick and Frank both commented that these types of issues should be addressed before getting to this stage. Sabart explained that when sewer and water are extended, there would be pipes that would benefit an off -site location when it develops. Street assessments are unique in that they are assessed based on the benefitting footage rather than the abutting footage. Loso questioned what is on that property to which Sabart stated that there is nothing on the site, rather it is real property. He then questioned if there is an easement. Loso made a motion to change the benefitting footage for line 23 from 208.72' to 100' and update the assessments accordingly. The motion was seconded by Symanietz. Ayes: Rassier, Symanietz, Loso Nays: Wick, Frank Motion carries 3:2:0. Frank stated that he spoke with residents of past projects and, as a result, questioned the warranty for the project. Sabart advised the Council that there is a 2 -year warranty from when the City executes the final payment for the street, curb and gutter. Sod has a warranty of 30 growing days. Loso made a motion to authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute Resolution 2010 -016, adopting the final assessment roll, with the amended changes, determining the terms of the special assessment. The motion was seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. Loso made a motion to authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute Resolution 2010 -017, awarding the project to the lowest, responsible bidder, JR Ferche in the amount of $550,416.65. The motion was seconded by Frank and passed unanimously. Adjourn: Symanietz made a motion to adjourn; seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. Judy Weyrens Administrator 4(a):11