Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[05] Park Terrace Public HearingcrrY OF ST. JC)SK H Council Agenda Item 5 MEETING DATE: September 1, 2011 AGENDA ITEM: Park Terrace SUBMITTED BY: Administration BOARD /COMMISSION /COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed Park Terrace improvements on April 14, 2011 and delayed action on the improvement so that a market analysis could be completed determining the benefit for the purpose of estimating individual assessments. The City Council accepted the Market Analysis on July 21, 2011. On August 18, 2011 the City Council considered the improvement and requested a public hearing to allow property owners an opportunity to voice their concerns on the proposed debt that would be issued to complete the project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The public improvement hearing is the first step in constructing an improvement. The resolution to order the improvement requires a 4 /5th vote of the Council; therefore even if the vote passes on a 3:2, the project cannot be ordered, the vote count must at least be 4:1. A resolution ordering the improvement is included with the information. In the event the Resolution does not receive the required votes, the Council should direct staff to prepare a resolution stating the reasons the improvement will not be constructed. Tom Jovanovich as prepared some suggestions that could be used, they are the some items referred to at the last Council meeting. Since the City Council has already scheduled and hearing the Public Improvement Hearing for the proposed project a decision must be made within six months or if the project is to be considered a new hearing must be scheduled. BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT: Approving the project would result in a 15 year debt ATTACHMENTS: Request for Council Action ......................................... ..........................5:1 -2 HearingNotice .............................................................. ..........................5:3 -4 Correspondence Received .......................................... .........................5:5 -12 Summary of Correspondence ...... ............................... ........................5:13 -14 Resolution Ordering Improvement ........................... ........................5:15 -16 Email from City Attorney ............... ............................... ........................5:17 -18 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: Consider ordering improvement 5:1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 5:2 CITY OF ST. JOSEPH s-rv. tity01$1joscph.com City of St. Joseph Public Hearing 15 Year Levy Proposal The St. Joseph City Council will conduct a public hearing on Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 7:00 Residential Impact Estimate Average Taxable Value Annual Impact $100,000 PM at the St. Joseph City Hall, 25 College Avenue North. The purpose of the hearing is to solicit $150,000 input on the budget impact of ordering the proposed 2012 Park Terrace Improvement. The $175,000 proposed 2012 Park Terrace Improvement includes the following: street, curb, gutter, water Administrator main, re- location of sewer lines and storm water improvements. The project improvement cost Judy weyrens is estimated at $1,945,800. Mayor Rick Schultz If the projected is completed the City will issue a 15 year bond to finance the improvement. The bond payment would be paid 10.5% through assessments and 89.5% through tax levies. The councilors resulting levy would then be a financial obligation of the City and would be added each year as a Steve Frank special levy collected with your property taxes beginning in 2012 and ending in 2027. The Bob Soso Renee Symanietz following table estimates the average annual impact on various priced homes and commercial Dale wick businesses. Residential Impact Estimate Average Taxable Value Annual Impact $100,000 $ 36.17 $150,000 $ 56.91 $175,000 $ 67.46 $ 250,000 $ 98.63 Commercal impact Estimated Average Taxable Value Annual Impact $ 250,000 $171.17 $ 500,000 $ 374.19 $ 750,000 $ 573.92 $ 1,000,000 $ 775.31 All persons wishing to speak will be heard and oral testimony will be limited to five minutes. Written testimony can be mailed to Judy Weyrens, City Administrator, PO Box 668, St. Joseph MN 56374 or by email at iwevrens�citvofstioseph.com. Judy Weyrens Administrator 5:3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 5:4 RECEIVED AUG 2 6 2011 J�JV��fH Aw6msr as, Rail TVs Y ule ►YRFwr ST. J'.sEPN GirY/laK�Nis'7'�wYoR -; d. Sex 46 Sn cTi.reew, My. j:L 3rlo RE f. ; 2 0 / of Ps it X 7? itS* C iF X MAR a vE Mow r �� Y��� Lev v �• P.r�z ST9tEET s/`af CoyLD NeT T'wKE MR �i 7N� �MR K TERR�tE An.D ��-i•�►, T �EL�fvf ZJ� Hit � s6VS %Af0 .BSS Y-fJY dTio�1, L ,cvY A 0PjFn)ts I-j, o-- o o;'i 1.1WE , JPJJ yiw Q �o R JS yE'HRs �e1t .Si��T'NiX6 �/,►�?' /91�9d A(b VAL Me To o sfR PA @PEATY ! s �✓ir Fi/I R� Ats;vc,q THE F e-rf -- f #E -,KCo rfvm Y 1 S &A1.9 No m a E R r: 608 y/ E w 1 s ujj ro APR �IX6'D ANC a MfC, tvf C09017-Adwrv" AAtDIW" 1-011Y. X1117 8� sW -- - - - -- - - - -- -.5��z �„ M r 37 1 5:5 Sarah Bialke From: Judy Weyrens Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 9:56 AM To: Sarah Bialke Subject: FW: 2012 Park Terrace Improvements From: Judy Weyrens Sent: Thursday, August 25, 20117:19 AM To: Daniel Schreifels Subject: RE: 2012 Park Terrace Improvements Good Morning — Park Terrace is a housing development located near the Ball fields where the St. Joseph Saints Play. Detailed information on the project can be found on the City of St. Joseph Website, www.cityofstioseph.com and is located under a red banner on the lower right of the screen. The Park Terrace development was constructed in 1960 and at that time it was the edge of the City. In areas of the development the sewer lines have signs of weakness and the useful life of a water and sewer lines is 50 years. Therefore these pipes have lived beyond their useful life. In addition to pipe integrity, the lines are located in the rear yards limited access. The proposed project installs new lines and placed them in the Street with both water and sewer being replaced. The streets are also failing and in need of repair. Based on a market analysis prepared on behalf of the City, the City can only assess the abutting property owners $ 4,500 per property leaving the balance the responsibility of the City. Knowing the large financial impact to the entire City, the City Council is seeking input from residents. I hope this answers your questions, please feel free to contact me if you have additional questions. Judy Weyrens Administrator City of St. Joseph PO Box 668 St. Joseph MN 56374 (320) 363 -7201 (320) 363 -0342 (Fax) iweyrens(- citvofstioseph.com From: Daniel Schreifels [ mailto :dan.schreifels(@omail.com1 Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 20115:46 PM To: Judy Weyrens Subject: 2012 Park Terrace Improvements Is there any way to get more information about where park terrace is, what the improvements are, and why they are needed. Is the park Terrace a City development. Is it a City park. Any information on this would be greatly appreciated. My address is 1615 Dale St. E, St. Joseph, MN, 56374 5:6 Sarah Bialke From: Judy Weyrens Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 10:13 AM To: Sarah Bialke Subject: FW: 2012 park terrace From: Judy Weyrens Sent: Friday, August 26, 201110:10 AM To: 'Dan Wippler' Cc: 'rick' Subject: RE: 2012 park terrace Good Morning Dan - I can understand the questioning of the proposed levy. One piece of paper does not explain the entire project or why the council is considering the levy. By MN Statute the City is limited to the amount a property owner can be assessed. The City Council hired an appraiser to determine the benefit to the property owners abutting the project. The maximum amount the City can assesses is $ 4,500 per property and the balance has to be paid by other funds, taxes. For all projects over the past years the City has levied the entire City to pay a portion of projects, this is not new. This difference this time is the amount that is being assessed. The City website has a special section on the Park Terrace Improvement which is located on the right side of the site, under the red banner about half way down. The city is trying to provide as much information as possible to the residents. I will forward your concern to the City council. Judy Weyrens City Administrator City of St. Joseph PO Box 668 St. Joseph MN 56374 (320) 363 -7201 Office (320) 363 -0342 Fax From: Dan Wippler fmailto:d winpler(dyahoo corm Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 12:53 PM To: Judy Weyrens Subject: 2012 park terrace Unfortunatly 1 cannot read between the lines -- -this smells of some thing out of the ordinary. Why is the City looking for all property owners to pay the cost of a select few? Certainly this has not been the case in the past- - why the change now? I do not beleive the council, Mayor or yourself have heard the end of this. As in football sometime an end around works -- -but not this time. 5:7 Sarah Bialke From: Judy Weyrens Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 11:29 AM To: 'Joe Leach' Subject: RE: Park Terrace Improvement Good Morning Joe - In this particular project their is not a payback. Park Terrace is a housing development from the 1960's with utilities that are starting to fail and of which some are located in backyards without adequate access. This development was located on the outer edge of the City and at that time the utilities were standards would have placed them. The streets in Park Terrace are also in bad shape and need replacement. while the city could line the sewer lines it would still not solve the access issues and reduces the project cost by less than $100,000. Since the street is in need of repair it is an opportunity to place the utilities in the street. The City is limited as to how much a property owner can be assessed and it cannot exceed the benefit received by the property (Minnesota Statute 429). To help make this determination, an appraiser was hired and the report indicates that the benefit to the property owners is $ 4500 per lot, the balance of which then has to be paid by levy. The City has always levied for street projects, but this is the first time that the levy will be has high as proposed. This is made worse by a declining housing market, trying to show benefit when values keep decreasing. The City had originally proposed to asses a greater portion, but we would lose in court based on the analysis prepared. For additional information on the project we have created a section on our website, www.citvofstioseph.com. It is located on the right hand side under a red banner about half way down. I hope this answers your questions. Judy From: Joe Leach jmailto :joe.leach*blissdirect.com1 Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 10:26 AM To: Judy Weyrens Subject: Park Terrace Improvement Judy- what will the payback be on that improvement? What is the estimated revenue increase to the taxbase over the next 15 years and how does that get realized BACK to tax payers. I don't know /understand how city government works, so I am asking. I am always curious as to why improvement levies get charged to taxpayers, but there never seems to be a return shown when the property starts adding revenue. So as a taxpayer, if all I see is a cost, I'm going to disapprove based on financial logic. Thanks for reading my rant :) And I would like some feedback. Have a good day Judy Joe Leach 5:8 Bernard & Elizabeth Schloemer 701 Hill Street West St Joseph MN 56374 Re: Park Terrace proposed assessment We believe that these improvements should be delayed until more of the improvements would be assessable to the properties affected. If there is only 10.5% improvement to the property, as the appraisal indicated, one would have to ask if this improvement is really needed at this time. We often hear, at public hearings, the city engineer say it should be done now because it will not get any cheaper. Our feeling is this is just a sales pitch to get work. If we were to truly believe that it will not get any cheaper why not do more improvements now. You know it will not get any cheaper If this improvement were to be approved as presented there would be a dangerous precedent set. We do not believe that the taxpayers can afford to cover these special taxes being added. If we look at the impact on a $150,000.00 house of $56.91 per year for 15 years, the life of the bond, it amounts to $853.65. If in each of the next 3 years a project of the same size were completed and assessed at 10.5% - 89.5% the total cost at the end of 15 years would be $3,072.49. We would hope that the council would think long on this and take into consideration the future impact. Please remember this assessment would be added to what St Joseph homeowners have already paid in previous assessments on their property. These previous assessments were calculated at a much lower cost to taxpayers in general, than what is proposed for this project. Berard Schloemer Elizabeth Schloemer 5:9 i AIN (0 August 30, 2011 GENERAL CONTRACTOR City of St. Joseph City Council 25 College Ave Building & St. Joseph, MN 56374 Remodeling CONSTRUCTION CO. BOX 250 815 E. COUNTY ROAD 75 ST. JOSEPH, MN 56374 (320) 363 -7781 FAX: (320) 363 -7207 www.wgohman.com nec .elVEo AUG 3 0 C�ryoFSr Jo011 SEpy Dear City Council Member, Commercial Industrial I am writing in response to 2012 Park Terrace Improvement. Please find another wa Institutional to finance these improvements other than having landowners who have aid their y Professional p g � P Religious assessments, now pay for these. Being involved in the ownership of four properties the combined value of this levy would be over $45,000.00. What is the benefit to me for this amount of money paid? Two of the properties I have had for sale for several years with no real interested buyers, so with this my costs go up and my value goes down. If this passes, is the assessor going to devalue property values? If expenses go up, values Design/Build should go down. Why is the business community being charged almost twice as much as the residential community? In an environment where the Council should be working to promote business activity, St. Joseph will be setting the precedence that they are willing to Construction charge business's whenever they have a financial problem. Management Services Can the utility lines be lined instead of replaced? What options have really been Ilooked at? Postpone this project and start saving general fund money to offset the cost. Again, please vote no to this levy proposal. This is bad policy even if an unfortunate situation. Yours truly, W. Gohman nstruction Co. Michael Gohman President 5:10 Bruce Gohmon Box 2S0 St. Joseph, MN 56374 RECEIVED August 30, 2011 City of St. Joseph City Council Members 25 College Avenue St. Joseph, MN 56374 Re: Proposed Park Terrace Improvements Dear Council Members AUG 3 0 2011 CITY OF ST. JOSEPH A few days ago I received a letter of the public hearing for Park Terrace improvements, which would be all fine, except for the process to have everyone else pay the brunt of these expenses for a few people in that area. All other improvements have been primarily paid for by the people getting the benefit of the improvements. As a person who owns business property in this City there is no value to these businesses, only more expenses which are already too high. I just spent two and a half years trying to rent the old army building where the current taxes are now over 18,000 dollars per year already. This property is very difficult to market against many other properties in the area where the taxes are a third of what they are in St. Joseph. Right now I had to do a rental at a very very low rent as the taxes on the propery are not competitive. The proposal should be 90% to the properties affected and maybe 10% to the rest of the city, rather than what is now proposed. The budget for this improvement seems totally too costly for the few houses involved in the improvement. Please vote to find another solution to this project or postpone it until it makes more economic sense. Maybe there is a more cost effective engineering solution as well. Yours truly, Bruce Gohman 5:11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 5:12 Comments Wednesday, August 24, 2011 Received - Park Terrace Levy Aleta Kvatum 406— loth Ave SE Questioned why she was being asked to pay for [Phone] [603 —19th Ave NE] a street improvement when already paid an Daniel Schreifels 1615 Dale Street E assessment and is still paying on it. Rick Schroeder 801-3 d Ave SW Stated that he was assessed $ 42,000 for Hill [Phone] Street so why is he paying for another neighborhood. Thursday, August 25, 2011 Bill Elfering 329 Cypress Drive Concerned why he received a letter. His [Phone] [603 —19th Ave NE] neighborhood is not benefitting by the Daniel Schreifels 1615 Dale Street E proposed project. Stated that they paid for the [Email] full amount when they did the improvements in his area. Seems as though every time we do a street project, things change. Charles Potter 423 Minnesota St. W He does not feel that he should be paying if he [Phone] isn't being benefitting. He lives on MN but technically in Park Terrace. Dan Wippler 129 Able Court E See attached [Email] Friday, August 26, 2011 Joe Leach 641 -15`h Ave NE See attached [Email] [603 —19th Ave NE] his business is significant and the economic Daniel Schreifels 1615 Dale Street E See attached [Email] to property taxes he has the burden of meeting Monday, August 29, 2011 Sy Prom Best Way Fabricating Expressed concern that the financial impact to (Phone) [603 —19th Ave NE] his business is significant and the economic time does not make sense to him. In addition to property taxes he has the burden of meeting federal and state regulations such as MPCA, OSHA, and Air Quality. All of these regulations have associated fees. He also stated that when 19th Avenue was completed he paid a much larger portion and questioned the assessment amount. 5:13 Comments Received - Park Terrace Levy Monday, August 29, 2011 (cont'd) Bernie Schloemer 701 Hill Street W See attached [Email] Ken Jacobson Cedar Street Questioned how this affects previous residents [Phone] that were assessed and the cumulative impact he will be paying as he owns rental, commercial and his house. Harvey Notch 402/406 8th Avenue NE Questioned why the taxpayers are being asked to pay this much when he & his neighbors paid 100% for the improvements on 8m Luke Kalla 90814th Avenue NE Stated that he has already built 2 homes in town and feels he has already paid his fair share and does not support paying for another neighborhood. 5:14 CITY OF ST. JOSEPH CC RESOLUTION 2011 -019 RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS Park Terrace Improvements WHEREAS, the city council directed the City Staff to schedule a public hearing on the proposed improvement of Park Terrace area by constructing street, curb, gutter, water, sewer and storm sewer improvements; and . AND WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks' published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 14th day of April, 2011, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA: 1. Such improvement is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the 1St day of September, 2011. 3. SEH is here by designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. 4. The city council declares its official intent to reimburse itself for the costs of the improvement from the proceeds of the tax exempt bond. Adopted by the council on this 1s' day of September, 2011. Rick Schultz, Mayor Judy Weyrens, City Administrator 5:15 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 5:16 Sarah Bialke From: Judy Weyrens Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 3:28 PM To: Sarah Bialke Subject: FW: Park Terrace Improvement Project --- Original Message-- - From: Thomas Jovanovich Imailto:Tjovanoyich @ rajhan.coml Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 20114:13 PM To: Judy W eyrens Cc: Brenda Wolbeck Subject: Park Terrace Improvement Project Judy, If the motion for the improvement project does not pass on Thursday evening the Council members voting against the project must state on the record the reasons why they are voting against the project and these reasons must appear in the meeting minutes as well as the records reflecting the motion and votes on the motion. Some of the reasons as to why some Council members may want to vote against the project are as follows: 1. Based on the appraisal by the appraiser, Julie Schwartz, the City's portion of the project costs are too high and would result in a financially burdensome levy by the City over the next 15 years. 2. The residents have strenuously objected to assessments which are higher than the benefit arrived at by the City's appraiser, Julie Schwartz. 3. Down sizing the project is not economically feasible since any down sizing would result in the need for portions of the road to be redone twice at intervals less than the normal useful life of the road. 4. Many residents question the need for any of the improvements at this time. 5. It would be. unfair to the other citizens of St Joseph for the City to pay for such a large portion of the project costs with the resulting levy being paid for by citizens who receive no benefit from this project. There may be more reasons that a Council member may want to vote against the project. Any additional reasons which a Council member has for voting against the project should be articulated on the record along with the above reasons. Tom Jovanovich Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd. 32('Q51-1055 tioN,anovich@raiban.com "' "'.." * * * * * ** 'Internet E -Mail Confidentiality Statement....... *" " " "` " Information contained in this e-mail transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above and is privileged and confidential. If you are not the addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby notified that any reading or dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any of its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and immediately delete the original message and any copy of it. Thank you. IF THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE CONTAINS ATTACHED FILES AND DOCUMENTS, PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: 5:17 These files and documents are legal documents that have been prepared by Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd. as drafts or final executable versions of the documents. These files and documents should only be printed for further review or execution as instructed. Any alteration, modification, addition, deletion or other changes to these documents may result in changes to the legal effect of these documents and the rights and remedies of parties involved. ACCORDINGLY, YOU ARE ADVISED NOT TO CHANGE THE TEXT OR FORMAT OF ANY OF THE ATTACHED FILES AND DOCUMENTS UNLESS SUCH CHANGES ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY YOUR LAWYER. RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER LTD. HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES FOR .ANY CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS MADE BY YOU TO THE ATTACHED FILES AND DOCUMENTS. 5:18 Sarah Bialke From: Judy Weyrens Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:32 PM To: Sarah Bialke Subject: FW: Public Hearing 15 year Levy Proposal From: judy meyer jmailtoJabmeyer17Calcharter.net1 Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:34 AM To: Judy Weyrens Subject: Public Hearing 15 year Levy Proposal City of St Joseph City Council, Judy Weyrens, City Administrator, Because we are unable to attend, this is our response on the Public Hearing scheduled for September 1 t. L Why is the public being asked to pay for these Park Terrace improvements? 2. I �1/hy are the people that live in Park Terrace only ge tting accessed 10.5% when they are the ones that will benefit from the improvements Why does the other 89.5% thru tax levies have to be paid for by the rest of the City residents? 3. If the public is expected to pay for the Park Terrace improvements, what happens when the next addition needs improvements and the next? We would continue to see a lot of increases in our taxes every time. Twenty some years ago, when we lived on East Able Street and curb and gutter were being installed, we were taxed per square footage and we were the ones responsible to pay for those improvements We are opposed to this request for a 15 Year bond to finance Park Terrace's improvements. Judy &Marty Meyer 343 4`h Ave SE St Joseph, MN 56374 Sarah Bialke From: Judy Weyrens Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:30 PM To: Sarah Bialke Subject: FW: Park Terrace levy proposal From: CMS Auto jmailto:crosautoCallive.coml Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 20115:27 PM To: Judy Weyrens Subject: Park Terrace levy proposal I understand that finding funds for city projects is difficult and important to maintain the cities roads, water and sewer systems. However the way this proposal is set up, many of the properties in St. Joseph will be paying a larger share of the bill than the properties that are getting the improvements. This seems to be a unfair assessment to me . It also sounds like most of the property owners were against the improvements when the cost to them was much higher, I would bet none of them came forward against the improvements they claimed were not needed after the new assessment proposal came out at a 10.5% assessment to them and the rest of us taking the remainder of the 89.5% through the tax levies. This proposal does not seem to be the answer to this problem, more time should be taken to insure the right thing has been done for all the property owners in the city. This sweet heart deal for Park Terrace will haunt this city for many years to come if this passes. Not just for the current property owners but the future ones we won't get because of this deal. Thanks for your time ,Ken Jacobson -1 hope this gets shared with the rest of the Council August 30, 2011 City of St Joseph 25 College Ave N St Joseph, MN 56374 RE: Proposed 2012 Park Terrace Improvements Dear Mayor, Councilors and Staff: The St Joseph Business Center is opposed to j!py tax levy relating to the Park Terrace Improvements. It doesn't seem right that business owners should have to pay for these improvements when it is the residents in the area who will benefit from it. Any other 'resident of St. Joseph or any other area who receive new curb, gutter, water or sewer improvements, have been required to pay for these improvements, even if they didn't believe they needed them or didn't agree that it improved the value of their land. My suggestion is if the residents don't believe they need these improvements or don't think they will improve the value of their property, do NOT make the improvements. In the future, they may need them and the improvements can be made then and paid for by the residents, as it has been done in the past. The St Joseph Business Center has seen increased property tax rates over recent years, (including the 8d' Ave E improvement assessments), even as property values decreased. Local businesses have continued to struggle through less than ideal economic circumstances for a number of years. A larger tax burden will only make an already bad situation worse. Please reconsider continuing the plan to make the Park Terrace Improvements, as most businesses that would be burdened with the cost of the improvements are already struggling with making ends meet in our current economy. Sincerely, 5U's.-W A 44--� Susan M. Hennen Manager /Owner St Joseph Business Center St. Joseph Business Center Susan Hennen, Mgr P. O. Box 238 St. Joseph, MN 56374 (320)363 -4589 Sarah Bialke From: Judy Weyrens Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:03 PM To: Sarah Bialke Subject: FW: Thursday Night Meeting ---- Original Message — From: Bill Nelson Lmailto:bill @eastwestrealty.co Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 20119:55 AM To: Judy Weyrens Subject: Thursday Night Meeting From Bill Nelson St. Joseph Business Center St. Joseph MN 56437 Hi Judy; I cannot be at the Public Hearing this Thursday night. I do understand the difference between Assessment's and Levy's! I don't believe that this is the time to bring additional tax burden's upon the citizens of St. Joseph. From what I have been able to ascertain, this project is not critical at this time. I think the project should be delayed, since it's not critical, and revisited in a few years when the economy has recovered. Given the fact that our housing is still declining in value, any improvements to residential property will result in "no" additional value to those homes. So of course the homeowners want a Levy instead of an Assessment. This is not the time to be adding additional taxes to the people of St. Joseph Thanks; Bill Nelson Sarah Bialke From: Judy Weyrens Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:03 PM To: Sarah Bialke Subject: FW: Park Terrace Improvements From: Pierskalla, Pam fmailto:Pam Pierskalla(&] ffersonCapitalInternational coml Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:33 AM To: Judy Weyrens Subject: Park Terrace Improvements I would like to express my concern regarding spreading the cost of curb /sewer improvements for the Park Terrace Improvement to all city residents. I find it extremely unfair for this expense to be allocated to anyone outside the addition. I own a home in the Northland addition and the cost of curb /sewer was included in my lot price. I don't believe the city should take this precedent because how will future improvements be allocated? My understanding is that if new curb /sewers were needed on my street in the future the cost would be allocated to the homeowners on that street. Please forward my concern at tomorrow evenings city council meeting. Thank you - - - -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message contains PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL information that is intended only for use by the named recipient. If you are not the named recipient, any disclosure, dissemination, or action based on the contents of this message is prohibited. In such case please notify us and destroy and delete all copies of this transmission. Thank you. Sarah Bialke From: Judy Weyrens Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:03 PM To: Sarah Bialke Subject: FW: Public Hearing 15 year Levy Proposal From: Brad Cobb jmailto:1231tic(&charter.netl Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:55 AM To: Judy Weyrens; 'Rick Schultz'; 'Renee Symanietz' Cc: 'Judy meyer'; 'LaNae Cobb'; 'Sarah Pennings'; 'ccrobin sand'; 'April'; 'KEVIN' Subject: FW: Public Hearing 15 year Levy Proposal City of St Joseph I agree and support this message below by Ms. Meyer.... I will be watching this process very closely. Brad Cobb From: judy meyer [mailto jabmeyer17(@charter.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 201111:35 AM To: Brad Cobb Subject: FW: Public Hearing 15 year Levy Proposal Brad this is what I sent to Judy on that public hearing tomorrow nite that is scheduled. LaNae didn't think you had a chance yet to send something. Judy From: judy meyer [mailto:Jabmeyer17@)charter.net1 Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:34 AM To: 'Judy Weyrens' Subject: Public Hearing 15 year Levy Proposal City of St Joseph City Council, Judy Weyrens, City Administrator, Because we are unable to attend, this is our response on the Public Hearing scheduled for Sep tember P. L Why is the public being asked to pay for these Park Terrace improvements 2. Why are the people that live in Park Terrace onlygetting accessed 10.5% when they are the ones that will benefit from the impro vemen is Why does the other 89.57o thru tax levies have to be paid for by the rest of the City residents;' 3. If the public is expected to pay for the Park Terrace impro vemen ts, what happens when the next addition needs impro vemen is and the next;' We would continue to see a lot of increases in our taxes every time. Twen ty some years ago, when we /i ved on East Able 5tree t and curb and gutter were being installed, we were taxed per square footage and we were the ones responsible to pay for those improvements We are opposed to this request for a 15 year bond to finance Park Terrace's improvements. Judy &Marty Meyer 343 4` "Ave SE St Joseph, MN 56374 z Judy Weyrens From: Frank, Stephen <sfrank @stcloudstate.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:20 PM To: Rick Schultz; Judy Weyrens Subject: FW: Really Anyhodt \Kant to help me make sense of this? sf When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it. - Clarence Darrow Nine - tenths of democracy is just showing up Dr. Steve Frank, From: mark holthaus [mailto:holthausmrkh @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 20113:17 PM To: Frank, Stephen Subject: Fw: Really Just wondering if your a vet what the legion means I do 8 years in the Marines Thanks for givin us abreak! As far as trrance Park goes Thanks For hearin us New road yes Everthing else isfine water main Really well the copper on my property is mine Anyway Thanks for spending 500000 On new cable do you watch 10 You guys suck see you at the polls! Judy Weyrens From: rick <rschultz25 @msn.com> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:41 PM To: Judy Weyrens Subject: FW: Really Can you make this part of public record? From: mark holthaus [ mailto:holthausmrkh@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 20112:59 PM To: rschultz25 @msn.com Subject: Really Rick just wondering You pushed thourgh spending 50,000 on new cable equipment when are we going to see the results. You ran on no closed meetings but its been ahwile since I was able to watch a council meeting! As Far as Terrence Park goes Well Thanks for hearing us! What Yes we could use a new road coarse if were payin for it please next year direct the 4th of July traffic another way! Water thers nothing wrong with our water but if you decide to put a larger water main in Im countin on Gettin the copper from our old one! New storm drainage Well check your water bill Enrerprising fund City Makes money On water Sweage,rain water. If Terrance park goes through does that mean Ill stop gettin billed. Curb n gutter come on its in great condition! Well if the swewer is in such bad shape and its fixed we should be able to lay off some city employees put there sal towards the bill. Also How much does judy make and would she be willin to take a pay cut. I had to Anyway see you at the polls less we forget Sarah Bialke From: Dave [davemarsha @charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:17 PM To: Judy Weyrens Subject: Park Terrace Levy Dear Judy: We are strongly opposed to sharing the cost of the Park Terrace improvements to residents who do not reside in the Park Terrace neighborhood. This is a large shift from past practice where residents were assessed for the improvements made to their own street. We find it extremely unfair to the residents who have had to bear the burden of paying for improvements to their own neighborhood. If improvements are made to our street in the future, will we only be assessed for 10% of the total assessment too? We would expect that if this proposed Park Terrace Levy is passed, we would also receive the same treatment the Park Terrace residents would be getting. We know we are not alone in our opposition to this levy. If it is your goal to appease complaints from the Park Terrace residents, you should consider the views of the rest of the city's residents who certainly out number those few. Dave and Marsha Schneider 1203 E Baker St. St. Joseph August 31, 2011 Dear Council Members, It has just been over a year since the residents of sixteenth avenue SE were faced with a special assessment for the street replacement. The council stated that they have always split the cost with the land owner and that a deviation from that % would set a dangerous precedent. Many of the residents expressed a concern about the economy and that the values of their homes would not increase with the proposed street improvements. Many of us felt, but could not prove, that the assessment would not be supported with an increase in our homes' value. Now less than 12 months later the city decided to hire an appraiser to determine whether the new proposed project will support the assessment. All of the St. Joseph Taxpayers paid for this appraisal and the Council discovered what the residents on 16th avenue knew, but could not individually afford or defend in court. We feel that the city should postpone any improvements unless they are requested by the homeowners or until the economy and home values support the improvements. Another option would be for the city to go back 3 or 4 years and credit all home owners that have had special assessments based on upgrading of existing city services or roadways and have the city take care of all costs and have us all share in the cost of these special assessments. Kevin and Jeanne Schirmers 105-16 th Avenue SE Sarah Bialke From: Tom And Jane Lowell [rocdoc @warpdriveonline.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8:06 PM To: Judy Weyrens Subject: Park Terrace Improvement Hi, We do have concerns about the assessments. We were part of the county road 121 project and are STILL paying those assessments. Is the city going to go back and reassess all the other improvements that have been done in the past where only the people living that area were assessed? We feel that on all the other projects and improvements everyone involved paid their own share, why the change? We are not in favor of being assessed for the Park Terrace Improvement. Thank you. Tom and Jane Lowell Sarah Bialke From: Jeff Tesch [JTesch @acusport.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 4:03 PM To: Judy Weyrens; rschultz25 @msn.com; symanietzrenee @clearwire.net; sfrank @stcloudstate.edu; bobloso @q.com; contactdalewick @hotmail.com Subject: Public Hearing 2012 Park Terrace Improvements City of St Joseph and Mayor Schultz, I am writing this to voice my opposition to the proposed 15 year tax levy for the Park Terrace Improvements. The entire city should not be burdened with the added expense of this project. Taxing residents to pay for development projects just because the city's inability to secure funding for projects like this is unacceptable and I do not agree with it. Where do you stop with this precedent? Does this mean that in the foreseeable future the city will turn to tax levies to fund development projects? I do not going to support this. I am also not for the city sitting idle while funding for projects becomes tight, but we as city residents are not under taxed as a society and we should not be considered a new source of revenue that can be tapped into at your discretion. Respectfully, Jeff Tesch 407 Elena Lane Jeff Tesch I AcuSport Corporation Regional Sales Manager 417 Great Oak Drive I Waite Park, MN 56387 -2507 Direct 1.800.543.3150 Ext. 5000 1 Fax 320.252.6511 9 teschOAcuSporLcom I www.AcuSport.com "We are dedicated to independent sporting goods retailers' success through our commitment to people, technology and innovation." Confidentiality Notice: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure by law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from printing, storing. disseminating, distributing or copying this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Neither this information block, the typed name of the sender, nor anything else in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature, nor a waiver of any legal privilege, unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. I-hank you, AcuSport Cot poration. Sarah Bialke From: dorian @dmbuildingcorp.com Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:31 PM To: Judy Weyrens Subject: Park Terrace Improvemants Judy, In response to your letter re: Park Terrace improvements I would like to be on the record that I vehemently oppose this proposal. I would also like to point out when we developed the "Indian Hills Business Park" we paid for all the improvements ourselves, we did not ask for any community hand -outs, enough said. Dorian Davidson: Partner DM partnership Partner Indian Hill Business Park Partner Northland Plaza Sarah Bialke From: Marcella & Bob Gill [mbgill @charter.net] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 2:41 PM To: Judy Weyrens Subject: Hello Have you gotten a lot of emails about the Park Terrace project? Does it have to be written in an email you can print or are you compiling the results? If you want me to send something separately, let me know. Our only comment would be - What makes Park Terrace so special? In the past we paid our share of the assessments for improvements to Minnesota street when we lived there, and we paid for the costs of water, sewer, curb, etc. when we built our new house on Pondview Lane. We especially feel sorry for the people on 16th Avenue who also recently paid their own assessments. Shouldn't all people in the City be treated equally? The Park Terrace people should pay their own costs as everyone else has in the past. Marcella & Robert Gill Sarah Bialke From: GINA DULLINGER [ginadullinger @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 1:47 PM To: Judy Weyrens Subject: Written testimony - 9/1/2011 Public Hearing 15 Year Levy Proposal I received notice of the Public Hearing to be held on September 1, 2011 for the purpose of obtaining input on the budget impact of ordering the proposed 2012 Park Terrace Improvements. Regrettably, I will not be able to attend the hearing to voice my opposition to the proposed tax levy. As such, I am providing the following comments and concerns for consideration: While it is my understanding that City practice has been to assess 60 percent of improvement costs to the benefitting properties and to subsidize the remaining 40 percent with City funds. However, due in part to declining property values it was determined through a Market Analysis that the maximum benefit to the properties in Park Terrace as a result of the proposed improvement project is $4,500. This amounts to a mere 10.5 percent of the estimated improvement costs. Since according to state statute, the City cannot assess more than the benefit received by the property, the remaining 89.5 percent of the proposed improvement costs must be paid by the City. Due to the age and condition of the infrastructure serving the fifty properties in Park Terrace, it is difficult to argue the necessity of the proposed project. However, the cost to the City for these proposed improvements is unusually high. And the burden the City proposes to place on the entire community through a 15 -year levy is unacceptable. Residential property values are on the decline (I personally saw a nearly 9 percent decrease in taxable value on my home in 201). The decision of CSB /SJU to require students to live on campus does nothing to help the property values in the City of St. Joseph, as former student rental properties are vacated. And while the City offers public incentives such as TIF and Tax Abatement in an effort to attract new commercial development, a levy such as the one proposed places a significant burden on existing businesses and commercial properties, especially during these difficult economic times. As property values continue to decline, it will be difficult to prove that the benefit of any typical reconstruction projects will be even close to the 60 percent of the construction costs historically assessed to benefitting properties. Thus, I believe the nearly 90 percent City costs of the proposed Park Terrace Improvements will be the norm rather than the exception for reconstruction projects in the foreseeable future. Infrastructure will continue to age, and portions of the City will continue to require improvements. As such, by collecting a special levy to pay for the high costs of the Park Terrace Improvements, the City runs the risk of setting a dangerous precedent — one the community cannot afford. I ask that the Council not order the improvements at this time. Sincerely, Gina Dullinger 1224 Cary Court St. Joseph, MN 56374 ainadullinaerO-vahoo.com Comments Received - Park Terrace Levy Wednesday /Thursday August 31 /September 1 Jim Graeve [In person] 8th Avenue NE Stopped to question the Park Terrace and stated support of the project and it is easier for residents to spread over entire area. Marilyn Rhur Hill Street Was assessed with the Hill Street project and does not see the equity in assessing different for this project. Linda Sniezek Various Feels the water and sewer are in good shape and in this economic time we should not incomplete the project. She also indicated if someone would sell their home the assessment would be decreased from their selling value and residents are already dealing with declining home values.