Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 [07] Jul 12July 12, 2010 Page 1 of 3 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 16th Avenue SE Improvements: Rassier stated that the purpose of the meeting is to conduct the assessment hearing and consider awarding the bid for the 16th 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 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 161h Avenue SE, in opposition to their proposed assessments. The letter indicated that their property did not abut 16th Avenue SE yet they were being assessed for 200'. [Line 20] Rodney Ophoven, 247 16th Avenue SE, approached the Council and questioned some wetland land located along 16th 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 19] takes into account what they have for wetland and what is actually buildable property. [Line 10] Joel Vogel, 212 16th 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 less, 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 16th 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 16th 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 16th 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 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 16th Avenue SE; rather they only have access to 16th 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 Jud We rens Ad inistrator