HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 [04] Apr 14April 14, 2011
Page 1 of 5
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in special session
Thursday, April 14, 2011 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph Community Fire Hall.
Members Present: Mayor Rick Schultz. Councilors Dale Wick, Bob Loso, Renee Symanietz. City
Administrator Judy Weyrens,
City Representatives Present: City Engineer Randy Sabart, City Attorney Tom Jovanovich, Public Works
Director Terry Thene.
Others Present: Tom Klein, Roman & Dorothy Meyer, Dan Aschnewitz, Brian Kellner, Jerry Johnson, Ed
Kacures, James Bruemmer, Jared Ethen, Greg Hartung, Bill Lorentz, Don & Jeanne Hoodecheck, Marge
& 011ie Lesnick, Rick & Marsha Retterath, Nathan Schatz, Joann & Dave Keller, Dan & Pat Weisser,
Rosanne & Ron Eiynck, Pat & Carolyn Anderson, Mary & Steve Niedenfuer, Ross & Mary Rieke, Charles
Potter, Janice Pfannenstein
Mayor Rick Schultz stated that the purpose of the public hearing is to consider the proposed
improvements for the project known as the Park Terrace Improvement Project. Schultz stated that the
City Engineer Randy Sabart will begin with a short presentation and then the hearing will be opened to
the public to either ask questions or comment on the proposed improvements. Schultz requested that,
when approaching the Council, they state their name and address and asked the public to limit their
comments to five minutes.
City Engineer Randy Sabart stated that this is the first of two public hearings that will be conducted for the
proposed project. If the improvement is ordered, the assessment hearing would occur. Sabart provided
the residents with some background on the existing conditions in the proposed project area. He stated
that the proposed project includes street reconstruction and utility improvements for the Park Terrace
neighborhood to include 4th Avenue NW, 5th Avenue NW, Ash Street W and Birch Street W. Sabart also
explained that the proposed improvements also include 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.
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 added 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 resulting in 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
April 14, 2011
Page 2 of 5
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 residents with an overview of the scope of the project and the existing conditions,
Sabart explained the two proposed project alternatives:
Option 1: [Reconstruction]
Option, 2: [Rehabilitation]
Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary Sewer
• Construct new 8"-10" sanitary sewer mains
• Rehabilitate existing 8" sanitary sewer
in the street.
mains with CIPP methods, apply CIP
• Construct new building service pipe to
coating on manholes.
homes
• Individual sewer services would not be
• Abandon existing sewer & manholes
rehabilitated.
Water Main
Water Main
• Construct new 8 water main in the street.
• Construct new 8" water main in the street.
• Reconnect building service pipes in the
• Reconnect building service pipes in the
front yards.
front yards.
Storm Sewer
Storm Sewer
• Reconstruct storm sewer along 4th Avenue
• Reconstruct storm sewer along 4th Avenue
and Birch Street.
and Birch Street.
• Extend new storm sewer to 5th Avenue on
• Extend new storm sewer to 5th Avenue on
Ash Street.
Ash Street.
Streets Streets
• Reconstruct 32' wide urban section to • Reconstruct 32' wide urban section to
include curb and gutter. [existing] include curb and gutter. [existing]
• Reconstruct driveways, in kind. • Reconstruct driveways, in kind.
Dedicate public utility easements for utility access.
Sabart advised the residents that there are no plans to add sidewalks at this time.
After presenting the two project alternatives, Sabart explained the project alternates that were presented
to the Council:
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)
• Reconstruct disturbed portions of street.
3. Alternate B: Birch Street W (between Old Hwy 52 & 2 "d Avenue NW)
• Reconstruct existing 12" clay pipe.
• Reconstruct 8" water main (replace 1960 CIP)
• Reconstruct disturbed portion of street.
Sabart then presented an opinion of probable costs associated with the
Street & Restoration [Includes an estimated $27,100 for Centennial Park] ["] $813,400 ["] $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 5th 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 1 $166,500
TOTAL [Does not include any easement acquisition costs] $2,149,800 $1,936,300
April 14, 2011
Page 3 of 5
After presenting the estimated costs, he explained to the residents how this would affect them 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 5th 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 preliminary fundina allocations fnr each nntinn to inchuta hnth altamnfem•
according to me preliminary funding allocations, Sabart stated that Option 1 would result in a 60/40 split;
whereas, Option 2 would result in a 45/55 split of the costs.
To give the residents an idea of how this would affect them personally, Sabart provided the residents with
the preliminary assessment rates for both options as well as an example of how a typical 80' wide interior
lot would be assessed.
Option 1: "IRectiristtuctaon - -
- - -- Option 2:j [Rehabilitation]
opt 2; ehabilition
. Specia
Assessment Ca '
AssessMentRate..
Total'
City
,
Construction Item
Assessment.
Subsldy :
Toil
Assessm n #.
Sebsidy,
Tota]
Street & Restoration
[`] $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
Water Service
$1,117 /Unit
$1,117
$1,115 /Unit
$1,115
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
-
-
-
SthAvenue 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%
149
$2,,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
according to me preliminary funding allocations, Sabart stated that Option 1 would result in a 60/40 split;
whereas, Option 2 would result in a 45/55 split of the costs.
To give the residents an idea of how this would affect them personally, Sabart provided the residents with
the preliminary assessment rates for both options as well as an example of how a typical 80' wide interior
lot would be assessed.
X1«1 PICDC Llily uses pumpers, oaoan: explainea some various programs that may be available to the
residents to help pay for the assessments. He stated that the City offers an Assessment Deferral program
{ tion Rscon
: 11:," structlon
opt 2; ehabilition
Assessment Ca '
AssessMentRate..
Total'
AssesserttRate
Total
Street & Restoration
$90.44/LF
$7,235
$83.83/LF
$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
[60/4011 Unit
Water Service
$1,117 /Unit
$1,117
$1,115 /Unit
$1,115
[60/4011 Unit
EXAMPLE TOTAL
[Typical 80 -foot wide interior lot
A4_
$16,281
$16,902
X1«1 PICDC Llily uses pumpers, oaoan: explainea some various programs that may be available to the
residents to help pay for the assessments. He stated that the City offers an Assessment Deferral program
April 14, 2011
Page 4 of 5
to seniors and those with disabilities. This process is explained in Ordinance 38. In order to qualify for this
program, the property must be homesteaded and the property owner must be 65 (or older) or disabled.
The City has applications forms that must be completed and the owner must provide a complete financial
disclosure form as well. Sabart reminded residents that interest accrues on the principal and this is simply
a deferral program. Sabart also stated that there may be some grant/loan programs that the City could
qualify for. The City could apply for assessment abatement through the Small Cities Development
Program. If approved, this would provide assessment abatement to eligible households in the
reconstruction project area. If awarded, the grant would pay for the entire assessment of all eligible (VLI)
households. VLI (very low- income) households are defined as a household having a total income of 50%
or less of the Stearns County median income. An income survey would be done to determine how many
households would meet this criterion. He advised the residents that this program is currently under attach
for funding.
Sabart concluded by providing the residents with a preliminary project schedule, provided the Council
decides to continue with the proposed improvement. If the Council chooses the reconstruction option,
Sabart advised the residents that staff would need to meet with the property owners to review their
household plumbing /basement. He added that, currently, the market has some significant competition
which will result in very aggressive pricing by contractors, keeping the costs low.
The public hearing was opened.
Rob Rolling, 34 4tn Avenue NW, approached the Council to question the proposed assessments. He
stated that he is confused over the preliminary assessments. One slide showed that the past practice was
to assess 60 %, but the other showed the reverse. Sabart explained that when the proposed assessments
were calculated, the additional City costs were added, reducing the overall assessment costs. That
affects the overall percentage breakdown.
Steve Niedenfuer, 202 a Avenue NW, addressed the Council and stated that he is in opposition to the
proposed project. Niedenfuer read an extract from the League of Minnesota Cities entitled the "Special
Assessment Benefit Test" which addresses the need for the City to prove the benefits of the proposed
project and the need for assessments to be uniformly applied. He stated that in his opinion this project
does not pass the test". Currently, they (the residents) have water, sewer, pavement, as well as curb and
gutter. After the proposed improvements, they would have the same. Based on that, he questioned the
benefit to the property owners and stated that "bonus points" are not given for those items being "new ".
Niedenfuer then stated that in his opinion the Feasibility Report seems to be a litany of mistakes to
include the size of the pipes and the installation of pipes in areas where the City does not have legal
access. It appears as though those mistakes are the reason for the proposed improvements. He
questioned whether the City would like to fix the problem(s), apologize for it or thank the residents for the
use of their properties all these years. In his opinion, it seems as though the City is seeking to steak their
money (the residents) to fix its mistakes. He stated he is unsure as to whether or not it needs to be fixed,
but stated that if so, it should be done on the City's dime rather than on the backs of those who can ill
afford it and who will not see an increase to their property values based on the proposed improvements.
In closing, he stated that he is confident that the District Court would be unlikely to agree with the City and
that he will do whatever he needs to do to prevent this scam on him, as well as his neighbors.
Ron Eiynck, 13 4th Avenue NW, approached the Council and stated that this presentation painted a grim
picture of what is there. He questioned how many areas actually have problems with the sewer. Sabart
explained that he is not exactly sure as they do not typically count the number of intrusions, but stated
that there are multiple instances. Eiynck stated that he is from the "old school" meaning one should fix
things that are broken. With respect to the issue of low water pressure, Eiynck stated that they do
experience low pressure during flushing, but that is not a problem. He added that the roads do need
some care, but stated that had the roads been built right originally, this would not be an issue. If there
was an intersection of 194/CR75, that would have eliminated heavy traffic in the project area. In his
opinion, it is a waste of City funds to tear up good material and replace it. As far as the location of the
current sewers and the need for staff to access private property to do maintenance, Eiynck stated that
April 14, 2011
Page 5 of 5
staff has been flushing the sewers the same way for the past 30 years and he feels that it is their job and
that is what they are being paid to do.
011ie Lesnick, 32 5th Avenue NW, approached the Council to address the issue of possible grants for low
income households. It was stated that those types of grants are hard to secure. He stated that, recently,
Sauk Rapids received funding as well as St. Cloud. According to Lesnick, the grants may be difficult and
time consuming, but feels that staff should do the research.
Ed Kacures, 107 51h Avenue NW, spoke to the Council and stated that, with the rising cost of fuel, the
Council may want to reject the project and do nothing at this time.
Ed Kacures Jr., 9180 10th Avenue (Rice), approached the Council and stated that he is not a property
owner in the project area; however, he does have a vested interest as his father is a resident affected by
the proposed improvements. He stated that many of the residents are retirees, which means that they are
on a fixed income. By assessing them up to $16,000, he feels that the City is robbing them of a good
share of their retirement funds. Many of them do not make $16,000 annually. He feels that this should be
considered when making the decision as to move forward or not. Kacures stated that, in St. Cloud, the
assessments can be stretched out over twenty years. By doing that, he stated that many of the property
owners would not be alive to see the last payment. Based on the economy, it would be difficult to sell
these properties with an assessment attached to it.
Tammy Kohl, Birch Street W, approached the Council and stated that the room is filled with a number of
people, some are older and some are also a lot younger starting out with families. She questioned how
the project will improve the area as the City cannot assess the residents more than what the project will
increase the value of the home. She concluded by stating that if the City wants to correct their mistakes,
they should pay for it.
Weyrens read a letter by Bob & Carol Trinklein, 416 Birch Street W, addressing their concerns with the
project. They questioned the ability of the residents to pay for the improvements, whether the project is
absolutely necessary, could the project be done in phases or possibly put off until a later date. They
stated that many of the residents do not have the money to pay for the assessments and they would hate
to see anyone lose their home due to the proposed improvements.
Schultz closed the public hearing.
Loso made a motion to table action on the proposed Park Terrace Improvements until the May 6
Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Wick.
Discussion: Schultz stated that a copy of the tape will be made available to Councilor Frank.
Weyrens stated that from this point until May 5, the City will have the ability to bring in an
appraiser to look at the affected properties to determine whether or not there is a benefit. On May
5, the Council will have the option to discuss the proposed project and decide whether to move
forward, gather additional information, or suspend the project. She added that this requires a 4/5
vote of the City Council.
The motion passed unanimously.
Adjourn: Loso made a motion to adjourn; seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously.
Judy eyrens
Adm nistrator
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK