HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 [03] Mar 03March 3, 2011
Page 1 of 5
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session
on Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 7:OOPM in the St. Joseph City Hall, opening the meeting with the Pledge
of Allegiance.
Members Present: Acting Mayor Dale Wick, Councilors 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, Police Chief Pete Jansky
Others Present:
Public Comments: No one present wished to speak.
Approval of the Agenda: Symanietz made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. The motion
was seconded by Loso and passed unanimously.
Consent Agenda: Frank made a motion to approve the consent agenda as follows:
a. Minutes — Approve the City Council minutes of February 15 and February 17, 2011.
b. Bills Payable —Approve check numbers 043862 -043895 and EFT numbers 000512-
000516 and 000530.
c. Transfers — Authorize the 2010 Transfers Interest Earnings, Authorize future sales tax
interest earnings to be realized in the water fund.
The motion was seconded by Symanietz.
Discussion: With respect to the minutes of February 17, Loso questioned whether the Council did
or did not abolish the Sales Tax Committee. Weyrens advised Loso that Schultz clarified that
there was no longer a need for the committee, but the motion passed did not include specific
language to abolish the committee.
The motion passed unanimously.
CITY ENGINEER/PUBLIC WORKS REPORTS
Loso stepped down from his chair
Park Terrace — Feasibility Report: City Engineer Randy Sabart presented the Council with the feasibility
report for the proposed improvements to the Park Terrace area. Sabart stated that as part of the
preparation of the report, he along with the Public Works Director hosted to open house meetings to
solicit feedback from affected property owners. The second meeting was well attended and useful
information was obtained.
Sabart stated that the proposed project includes street reconstruction and utility improvements for the
Park Terrace neighborhood to include 4`h Avenue NW, 5th Avenue NW, Ash Street W and Birch Street W.
Sabart also explained that the report also includes two alternates.
• Alternate A: Reconstruct approximately 160' of utilities and the overlying street on Old Hwy
52. It would include relocating the existing sanitary sewer and manhole from one of the
properties from a side yard to the street to allow for manhole access at the street.
• Alternate B: Reconstruct the utilities and overlying roadway on Birch Street W from Old Hwy
52 to 2nd Avenue NW.
Sabart explained that the streets in Park Terrace were last reconstructed in 1985 and seal coated in
1997. The streets are an Urban Pavement Design which means that they have curb and gutter. They
were constructed as a light 5 -7 ton structural design with a bituminous width of thirty two feet. Sabart
advised the Council that the pavement surface is starting to deteriorate as there is alligator /fatigue
cracking, block cracking, large transverse cracking and weathering.
March 3, 2011
Page 2 of 5
In addition, Sabart explained that the existing storm sewers are 12 " -15" and are believe to be constructed
between the 1960's and 1985/ The existing storm sewer drains north through the Hollow Park Subdivision
to the south fork of the Watab River. Sabart explained that large volumes of run -off have been observed
at the intersection of Ash Street/4th Avenue NW. He also advised the Council that there is a slow drainage
problem which has resulted in ponding on Birch Street W near 2nd Avenue NW.
Sabart stated that the sanitary sewer mains along Birch Street W and east of 4th Avenue NW consist of
12" clay pipe with all other sanitary sewer lines 8' clay, installed in the 1960's. He further clarified that
typical clay pipe deficiencies that have been observed to include root intrusion, cracked or broken pipe,
offset or open pipe joints and cut -in /protruding service taps. The clay pipes are located in the backyard
without easements, limited access. He stated that staff relies heavily on the "good will" of the residents to
allow them to access the manholes.
The water mains in the Park Terrace addition are also inadequate as most of the lines are one to one and
one -half inch, equivalent to a residential service line in today's standards. In 1960, 1 %1 %" copper water
mains were installed along Ash Street W, south side of Birch Street (west of 4th Avenue NW), north side
of Ash Street W, and the east side of 4th Avenue NW. He stated that 2" and 4" cast iron water mains were
installed in 1960 along the north side of Birch Street West (west of 4th Avenue), 4th Avenue NW and 5th
Avenue NW. Sabart advised the Council that, in 1985, a 6" water main was installed and, so far, only one
home has connected to that main. He added that the existing water mains are buried in front
yards /boulevards rather than in the street. Staff has reported that some residents are experiencing low
water pressure during hydrant flushing operations. Due to the size of the current water mains, they do not
meet the current standards for domestic flows with fire protection.
After providing the Council with an overview of the scope of the project and the existing conditions, Sabart
discussed the proposed project alternatives as one option involved reconstruction of the sanitary sewer
and the other rehabilitation of the existing sanitary sewer.
Option 1: [Reconstruction]
Sanitary Sewer
• Construct new 8 "-10" sanitary sewer mains
in the street.
• Construct new building service pipe to
homes
• Abandon existing sewer & manholes
Water Main
• Construct new 8" water main in the street.
• Reconnect building service pipes in the
front yards.
Storm Sewer
• Reconstruct storm sewer along 4th Avenue
and Birch Street.
• Extend new storm sewer to 5th Avenue on
Ash Street.
Streets
• Reconstruct 32' wide urban section to
include curb and gutter.
• Reconstruct driveways, in kind.
Option 2: [Rehabilitation]
Sanitary Sewer
• Rehabilitate existing 8" sanitary sewer
mains with CIPP methods, apply CIP
coating on manholes.
• Individual sewer services would not be
rehabilitated.
Water Main
• Construct new 8" water main in the street.
• Reconnect building service pipes in the
front yards.
Storm Sewer
• Reconstruct storm sewer along 41h Avenue
and Birch Street.
• Extend new storm sewer to 5th Avenue on
Ash Street.
Streets
1. Reconstruct 32' wide
Dedicate public utility easements for utility access.
Once the options were discussed, Sabart explained the three project alternatives:
1. Flatten slopes at Centennial Park with excess grading materials generated by project.
2. Alternate A: Old Hwy 52
• Construct 150 LF new 8" sanitary sewer to locate sewer to the street from the side yard.
• Reconstruct 8" water main (replace 1973 CIP)
March 3, 2011
Page 3 of 5
• Reconstruct disturbed portions of street.
3. Alternate B: Birch Street W (between Old Hwy 52 & 2nd Avenue NW)
• Reconstruct existing 12" clay pipe.
• Reconstruct 8" water main (replace 1960 CIP)
• Reconstruct disturbed portion of street.
Sabart then provided the Council with an opinion of probable costs for the proposed project to include
construction alternates A & B.
Construction Category
Option 1
Option 2:
Rehabilitation
Street & Restoration [Includes an estimated $27,100 for Centennial Park]
["] $813,400
["J $755,900
Sanitary Sewer [Includes an estimated $9,700 for Clinton Village]
[.] $314,800
$399,700
Sanitary Sewer Services
$340,300
$106,700
Water Main [Includes an estimated $9,300 for eh Ave W realignment]
[ "] $240,000
$230,300
Water Services
$81,900
$81,800
Storm Sewer
$155,400
$155,100
Alternate A - Old Hwy 52
$39,100
$40,300
Alternate B - Birch Street W
$164,900
$166,500
TOTAL [Does not include any easement acquisition costs]
'" $2,149,800
$1,936,300
After providing Council with some cost estimates, he was able to explain how this would affect the
individual property owners by way of special assessments. The special assessments were based on a
number of assumptions:
• Assessments based on benefitting footage for street and number of units for utilities.
• City would not assess sewer service reconnection costs.
• No water main assessment for residents on 5t" Avenue due to existing 6" water main. Water
services would be assessed.
In the past, similar reconstruction projects were assessed based on a 60/40 split based on the following:
• Interior lots would be assessed 100% of the benefitting front footage.
• Corner lots would be assessed 100% of the short-side footage and 50% of the long -side footage.
• Irregular lots would be assessed based on the lot area being divided by 110/130' (average lot
depth) to determine the average footage.
Sabart explained the preli mina funding allocations for each 013tion to include both alternates.
Option 1: [R;econstructionj
Option 2: [Rehabilitation)
Special.-
. - ' City =
special
City .
Construction item
Assessment
Subsidy
Total
Assessment
Subsidy
Total
Street & Restoration
[ *J $471,800
$314,500
$786,300
("] $437,300
$291,500
$728,800
Centennial Park Slopes
$0
$27,100
$27,100
$0
$27,100
$27,100
Clinton Village Sewer
$0
$9,700
$9,700
-
-
-
Realignment
Sanitary Sewer Main
$183,100
$122,000
$305,100
$239,800
$159,900
$399,700
Sanitary Sewer Services
$0
$340,300
$340,300
$0
$106,700
$106,700
Water Main
$138,400
$92,300
$230,700
$138,200
$92,100
$230,300
Water Main Realignment
$0
$9,300
$9,300
-
-
-
5th Avenue NW
Water Services
$49,100
$32,800
$81,900
$49,100
$32,700
$81,800
Storm Sewer
$0
$155,400
$155,400
$0
$155,100
$155,100
Alternate A
$0
$39,100
$39,100
$0
$40,300
$40,300
Old Hwy 52
Alternate B
$0
$164,900
$194,900
$0
$166,500
$166,500
Birch Street W
TOTAL
$842,400
39.2%
$1,307,40
60.8%
$2149,800
$864,400
44.6%
$1,071,900
55.4%
$1,936,300
[Includes an estimated amount
that the City would pay as a lot
$64,306
$59,606
owner
March 3, 2011
Page 4 of 5
He concluded by providing an example of how a typical 80' wide interior lot would be assessed based on
both options.
During the presentation, the Council raised several questions:
• Loso questioned whether or not the street could be widened. He stated that, currently, there are
issues with being able to accommodate parking on both sides of the street. Sabart stated that that
was not included in his estimates, but it would be a possibility.
• Symanietz asked Sabart what Vendors are saying about the cured in place piping (CIPP) option.
Sabart replied that the CIPP method has gained traction as an acceptable method. He added that
the product is newer technology so long term impacthere aren't any that have been around long
enough to give solid proof, but their testing indicates that they could last up to 50 years.
According to Sabart, the material is chemical resistant and has promise. Symanietz then
questioned whether or not there are issues with the pipes either shrinking or expanding due to
moisture, etc. Sabart replied that there could be issues due to installation, if the pipe is not sized
correctly. He added that one potential weak area would be the service taps, due to the fact that
they line the entire pipe and then come back to cut the hole for the individual service tap. He
stated that, if the Council chooses to proceed with this option, an investigation would need to be
done for each home as each home as well, as its plumbing, is unique.
• Frank questioned how the property owner's service would be affected during the construction
process. Sabart replied that, similar to past projects, the contractor would need to provide
temporary service. If there were going to be any interruptions, the property owners would be
notified and they would be short-term.
Sabart explained how the irregular lot footage is calculated. He stated that the average lot depth is 110';
however, the properties along 5th Avenue also include a 20' outlot abutting Clinton Village. As a result,
those properties would have an average lot depth of 130' rather than 110'. After seeing the costs,
Symanietz clarified that t would be cheaper for residents to go with Option 1 to reconstruct the sanitary
sewer rather than to line the pipes. Sabart concurred that, yes, it would be cheaper for residents by way
of special assessments.
Wick then questioned the next step in the process. Weyrens advised the Council that this would be
brought back at the next meeting with proposed meeting dates and to decide whether or not the Council
wants to consider moving forward with the project. She added that the first step in the process would be
to conduct a Public Improvement Hearing at which she advised them that they would need a
supermajority vote.
Frank stated that he goes back and forth with sidewalks, but stated that it is not an issue as neither plan
incorporates that. Frank questioned how this would impact Clinton Village to which Weyrens stated that it
will not impact Clinton Village at this time.
Loso resumed his chair at 7:45 PM.
Option `1: Reconstruction
O tion I. Rehabilitation
Assessment Category,
Assessment Rate
Total`
Assessment Rate
Total
Street & Restoration
$90.44/1-F
$7,235
$83.83/1-F
$6,706
[60/40] 80 Lineal Feet
Sanitary Sewer
$3,736 /Unit
$3,736
$4,894 /Unit
$4,894
[60/40] 1 Unit
Water Main
$4,193 /Unit
$4,193
$4,187 /Unit
$4,187
[60/40] 1 Unit
Water Service
$1,117 /Unit
$1,117
$1,115 /Unit
$1,115
[60/4011 Unit
EXAMPLE TOTAL
[Typical 80 -foot wide interior lot
$16,281
$16,902
During the presentation, the Council raised several questions:
• Loso questioned whether or not the street could be widened. He stated that, currently, there are
issues with being able to accommodate parking on both sides of the street. Sabart stated that that
was not included in his estimates, but it would be a possibility.
• Symanietz asked Sabart what Vendors are saying about the cured in place piping (CIPP) option.
Sabart replied that the CIPP method has gained traction as an acceptable method. He added that
the product is newer technology so long term impacthere aren't any that have been around long
enough to give solid proof, but their testing indicates that they could last up to 50 years.
According to Sabart, the material is chemical resistant and has promise. Symanietz then
questioned whether or not there are issues with the pipes either shrinking or expanding due to
moisture, etc. Sabart replied that there could be issues due to installation, if the pipe is not sized
correctly. He added that one potential weak area would be the service taps, due to the fact that
they line the entire pipe and then come back to cut the hole for the individual service tap. He
stated that, if the Council chooses to proceed with this option, an investigation would need to be
done for each home as each home as well, as its plumbing, is unique.
• Frank questioned how the property owner's service would be affected during the construction
process. Sabart replied that, similar to past projects, the contractor would need to provide
temporary service. If there were going to be any interruptions, the property owners would be
notified and they would be short-term.
Sabart explained how the irregular lot footage is calculated. He stated that the average lot depth is 110';
however, the properties along 5th Avenue also include a 20' outlot abutting Clinton Village. As a result,
those properties would have an average lot depth of 130' rather than 110'. After seeing the costs,
Symanietz clarified that t would be cheaper for residents to go with Option 1 to reconstruct the sanitary
sewer rather than to line the pipes. Sabart concurred that, yes, it would be cheaper for residents by way
of special assessments.
Wick then questioned the next step in the process. Weyrens advised the Council that this would be
brought back at the next meeting with proposed meeting dates and to decide whether or not the Council
wants to consider moving forward with the project. She added that the first step in the process would be
to conduct a Public Improvement Hearing at which she advised them that they would need a
supermajority vote.
Frank stated that he goes back and forth with sidewalks, but stated that it is not an issue as neither plan
incorporates that. Frank questioned how this would impact Clinton Village to which Weyrens stated that it
will not impact Clinton Village at this time.
Loso resumed his chair at 7:45 PM.
March 3, 2011
Page 5 of 5
Update on DNR Grant Application: Sabart reported that at the last Council he presented the Council with
the option of submitting a grant application for a trail extension along the proposed CR 2 realignment.
Since the last meeting he has had the opportunity to speak with a representative of the DNR who
informed him that they still anticipate receiving state funds for distribution. Weyrens then advised the
Council that the realignment of County Road 2 may not happen this year either due to land acquisition.
Thus, she stated that it may not be a good idea to move forward with the grant application at this time.
Loso stated that there is a lot of talk about adding more trails within the City; however, the Council has not
discussed the maintenance of the trails. Eventually there will be some maintenance costs associated with
the trails. According to Wick, Thene has been working on a seal coating budget for the trails and stated
that Kleinfelter was done last year.
ADMINISTRATOR REPORTS — No Report
ACTING MAYOR REPORTS
EDA: Wick advised the Council that the EDA has moved their meeting from March 23 to March 30.
Fence Ordinance: Wick stated that the Fence Ordinance was last updated in 2006. At that time, the
section requiring permission from the neighbors when constructing a maintenance -free fence on the
property line was removed. He questioned whether or not the Planning Commission should discuss this
again.
Frank made a motion directing the Planning Commission to re- discuss the Fence Ordinance and
bring their recommendations back to the Council. The motion was seconded by Symanietz.
Discussion: Loso stated that they spent a lot of time discussing the fence issue and added that, in
most cases, fence issues are a result of "squabbles" between neighbors.
Ayes: Wick, Symanietz, Frank
Nays: Loso Motion carried 3:1:0
COUNCIL REPORTS
SYMANIETZ — No Report
LOSO
Sales Tax Committee: Loso stated that the Council previously discussed the Sales Tax Committee, but
never officially decided whether or not they should continue to meet. Therefore, Loso made a motion to
dissolve the Sales Tax Committee and reconvene in the future, if necessary. The motion was
seconded by Frank and passed unanimously.
Park Terrace: Loso commented that he is happy with the proposed project. Sabart was able to show the
Council a brief video relating to the CIPP as discussed earlier with the Feasibility Report.
FRANK
EDA: Frank reported that the EDA has approved City assistance to the St. Joseph Meat Market thru use
of excess TIF funds. He stated that there is one other businesses applying for funding as well and that is
the Millstream Shops and Lofts. They are seeking help to start up a restaurant. Those two items may be
combined and discussed at one meeting. He also reported that they have been working on the Farm to
School Initiative and stated that it seems to be progressing very well.
Ad*ourn: Symanietz made a motion to adjourn at 8:05PM; seconded by Frank and passed
unanimously.
y
J� yy eyre�fs
Admi istrator
r"
r
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK