HomeMy WebLinkAbout[05a] Minutes
June 17, 2013
16
Page of
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the St. Joseph City Council met in regular session on Monday,
June 17, 2013 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall, opening the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Members Present: Mayor Richard Schultz, Councilors Dale Wick, Renee Symanietz, Steve Frank, Bob
Loso and City Administrator Judy Weyrens
City Representatives Present: Police Chief Pete Jansky, Police Chief Joel Klein, Finance Director Lori
Bartlett, Public Works Director Terry Thene and City Engineer Randy Sabart
Others Present: Murray Mack, Tom Peck, Shane Vernier, Lindsay Vernier
PUBLIC COMMENTS
th
Michael McDonald, 213 13 Ave SE approached the Council to express his opinion on the proposed
government center or Community Center vs. Community Room. He stated that he does not understand
the rationale of the City Council to consider constructing a new government facility. He stated the City
has many more pressing needs and does not see the benefit to the tax payers. He further stated that the
proposed government center has not been identified as a need nor is it part of the City Capital
Improvement Plan. The City bonded $ 200,000 for repairs to the current City facility which further
evidences that the City did not plan on constructing a new facility. He urged the Council to reconsider the
need to construct a new government center.
Frank made a motion to approve the agenda adding 3a) Officer Swearing
Approval of the Agenda:
in. The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously.
Discussion: Frank thanked the St. Joseph Lions for the generous donation of $ 8,450 for the
purchase of a gazebo for Cloverdale Park as well as those donating to the campsite and archery range.
Loso corrected the minutes of May 16 stated that access to the DAMA Boxes is for the Police Department
and the minutes state Fire Department.
New police officer, Swearing In: Weyrens administered the oath of office to Patrol Officer Shane Vernier.
Upon being sworn in, Vernier introduced himself thanking the Council for the opportunity to serve the City
of St. Joseph.
Wick made a motion to approve the consent agenda as follows; seconded by
Consent Agenda:
Symanietz and passed unanimously.
a. Minutes –Approve the minutes of May 16, 2013, with correction.
b. Bills Payable –Approved check numbers # 046673-046729, payroll EFT # 000814-000818
and accounts payables EFT #001618-001619.
c. Donations – Accept donations of the St. Joseph Lions for the Gazebo for Cloverdale Park
($8,250) and anonymous donations from the disc golf ($15), archery range ($17.50) and
camping ($87).
d. Treasurers Report – Accept the May 2013 Treasurers Report as presented.
e. Application for Payment – Authorize the Mayor to execute payment #1 for the 2013 Sidewalk
Improvement to Concrete Idea in the amount of $92,801.87.
Facilities: Wick stated that upon receiving direction from the City Council to continue the process to add a
community room component and new Council chamber, the facility committee has been met with the
architect. First, Wick stated that a distinction must be made between a community room and center. The
facility committee has been charged with planning a community room and a separate committee will look
at an active recreation center.
For over a year, the facility committee has been discussing whether to remodel the existing facility or start
with a clean site. Based on a recommendation of the St. Joseph EDA it was determined that the City
Facility needed to remain downtown. Therefore current planning efforts are focusing on the existing land
and building owned by the City. Wick stated that it is estimated to cost 3.5M to remodel and expand the
existing facility. Some concern has been expressed if the City spends 3.5 M on remodeling is their
June 17, 2013
26
Page of
sufficient room for expansion or will the City be in the same situation in ten or fifteen years. It was
suggested at the facility committee meeting that if the City moves forward with constructing a stand-alone
community center, the community room space at the government center could eventually be converted
for staff use.
Murray Mack, Hagemesiter Mack Architect, stated that the facility committee has been on break for about
eight months, not rushing the process, allowing the City Council to determine the needs of the
community. Mack reviewed the different options previously reviewed by the Council to include: a) using
the existing facility adding a portion to the north; b) using the existing facility adding a two story portion to
the north; c) adding a second floor to the current facility; d) utilizing the former Kennedy School; e) a new
facility on a site not located within the downtown area. The process stalled when community functions
were discussed in tandem with the City facility.
The most recent discussion have been focused on option 1 which is a schematic that used the existing
building, basement, upstairs, and included building around it, and option 1A also used the existing
basement but tried to expand building square footage to meet functional needs. The first option was
lacking, especially in the police department area. Two stair towers and one elevator would likely be
reused, but are not accessible to the public off the main public corridor in the design. A lot of decisions
affect the overall budget and building functionality for years. Schultz commented that a facility needs to
meet the City’s needs for the next 50 years. There are cost savings for using the existing building, yet
some functional drawbacks of future opportunity. In all the committee meetings held, the decision has
leaned toward removing the upper floor, reusing the basement as much as possible, and maximizing site
use. There is some debate of the value to reusing the basement functionally. If it was removed, the cost
increased $ 200,000 - $ 300,000. They looked at rebuilding the basement from the police department
garage and support area over to the middle of the main circulation corridor for new basement, making the
elevator and stair shafts more available to the public.
Mack discussed potential scheduling. If the Council decides to move forward with a budget and rough
schematic at this meeting, there is still three to four months of additional design work and preparation of
construction documents before getting into the bid phase. Construction start would then be November or
December 2013. At that point, they could just wait and start construction Spring 2014. During
construction, police department and city staff would have to relocate as there would be too much
renovation and demolition to stay and work around employees. There is $50,000 in the budget for staff
relocation at this time.
Option 1A was difficult because of the small additions on the building exterior to make it functional; it got
more expensive to build footage in little strips. There were functional deficiencies, compromises, and
additional costs in working with the existing building, so the committee suggested demolishing the current
structure. There was an additional 1,150 SF in Option 1A vs. Option 1. Subtracting the project cost,
there was a $50,000 premium between the two options to clear off the upper floor. Option 1A was
recommended with possible basement changes. Frank asked if the City can put off the Community
Room until they find out if there will be a Community Center. Mack responded that the cost to eliminate
the Community Room would be minor. If you subtract it from the plan, you would have to put exterior wall
in its place including an exterior finish that works with the rest of the building, replacing the exterior the
North and West walls and moving them to interior. The facility committee discussed the possibility of
having police department locker rooms in the basement along with storage, and if the Community Room
was eliminated, staff offices would likely be there, moving the main corridor to the South and keeping the
police department garage and everything to South of the main corridor.
Loso asked if the new building would be engineered to accommodate a second floor. Mack responded
that the building didn’t seem to justify a two-story option and it would take careful consideration. The roof
of the initial first floor building gets to be more expensive with an idea that there may be second floor
expansion. Is it a flat or pitched roof? The committee didn’t discuss it - probably flat. There needs to be
enough room for parking. It’s hard to make any judgment calls so far into the future but they did the best
to balance the dollars, function, and possible reuse of current structure. The Highway 75 plan certainly
provided more flexibility for expansion.
June 17, 2013
36
Page of
Mayor Schultz doesn’t believe anybody’s in a rush to spend money. The committees and staff have been
diligent in finding the right mix after the recommendation of staying downtown, having a downtown
footprint, and a portion of the balance was the Community Room (200 people vs. 100 people). In looking
ahead, when they initially acquired the building, they spent a fair amount to buy and remodel. Now we
are out of space and functionality and not working to the most productive means, and the City doesn’t
want to come back in 15 years doing it again, so we need to take a long broad look at this. If we vacate
the building, would it make sense to build a basement under the entire span or isn’t that necessary?
From the line of the sally port to the left-hand side of the main corridor, there’s a nice space to
accommodate storage and possibly a meeting room. However, if the public had to get to the basement,
the elevator would be only available through the police department office. Schultz mentioned that the city
will be basically land-locked so he wants to allow room for growth. What is the cost difference to expand
under the council chambers and Community Room, but not under the garage? Frank encouraged space
for the mayor’s office and a storm shelter. Would the shelter need to be basement low grade with precast
deck above or FEMA compliant like an Emergency Operation Center? The vault is used in the current
building.
Wick advocated for a schematic that starts clean slate, top to bottom, bigger basement, and configure
elevator and stairs to allow this area for emergency situations. Taking the first floor off would essentially
ruin the basement area and it would need to be gutted anyway. Loso is concerned about moving staff for
a 2014 construction date. Schultz asked the occupancy of the council chambers to which Mack
responded it is about one third larger than the current facility; however, the new chambers would be
located in an area that could allow for overflow when large meetings occur. Loso wondered how long
would construction take? RA Morton answered roughly ten months to one year.
Wick suggested that the committee is ideally looking for a budget and an answer to keep the existing
basement or start from a plain site. Budget could be from $ 3.9-4.3M ($ 300,000 difference to start from
scratch or keep the basement). If replacing the basement, what is the cost to the project? Could the
precast plant be reused? Starting from a clean slate, the building could be moved to the West where
parking now exists, eliminating the walk-through feature that’s there to accommodate the walk up parking
and walk-ins off College Avenue. Committee recommended having more building frontage off College
Avenue with parking in the back. With regard to financing the facility, Weyrens stated that City Hall debt
will expire in two years and that levy for the existing facility could be placed towards the new facility
lowering the financial impact. In addition Weyrens stated that at one point Stearns Electric indicated that
the city could have access to rural development funds, which carries 0% interest. Loso questioned if the
facility would sales tax exempt, to which Weyrens stated the recent law change only applies to goods the
City purchases. However, if the project moves forward the City could request the legislature to authorize
an exemption, which is commonly approved. Weyrens stated that the staff will provide a financial
summary/impact for the next presentation.
Loso stated that in talking to the public he has heard residents say that the City should demolish the
existing facility and start from scratch as it does not make sense to put additional money into the facility.
Loso asked about gutting the basement or constructing a slab on grade facility. Mack stated that since
the site is limited, a basement under a portion of the facility makes sense and can be used for police
accessory use so that upper level space is not consumed. Loso thought about the parking lot: getting rid
of the green curb, making the alley wider, and improving traffic flow to where the entire downtown could
use it. There are other things to work through such as where the electrical transformers and garbage
refuse area will go. Mack stated that the Council needs to make a decision as to whether or not it makes
sense to demolish the existing facility and then approve a preliminary budget for the facility committee to
work within.
Loso made a motion directing the Architects to design a Government Campus Facility on the
existing site, demolishing the current facility, including basement and provide a budget of $ 4-
4.6M. The motion was seconded by Frank and carried unanimously.
June 17, 2013
46
Page of
Engineer Reports
2013 Street Improvements: Sabart reported that bids were opened on June 12, 2013 for the 2013 Street
Improvement Project with the following results:
Knife River $ 312,501
Hardrives $ 318,646
Engineer’s estimate $ 318,902.
At this time the Council has to determine if they wish to move the project forward to the assessment
hearing. The project would not be awarded until after the assessment hearing to gauge the financial risk.
With the actual bid numbers the proposed assessment have been revised with the majority of
assessments being lowered. Frank questioned Sabart on why the contingency was reduced $ 18,000
from the preliminary numbers. Sabart responded that since the City has actual costs, and more
knowledge of the project the contingency was lowered. Frank questioned if the City considers sidewalk
when designing improvements. Sabart responded that the City could look at sidewalk, but the project
before the Council at this time is an overlay and one would typically see sidewalk when a street is
reconstructed. The only sidewalk included in the project is revising pedestrian ramps so that they meet
Schultz made a motion authorizing the Mayor and Administrator to execute
ADA requirements.
Resolution 2013-023, hearing on proposed assessments for the 2013 Street Improvement project
for July 9, 2013. The motion was seconded by Frank and carried unanimously.
Schultz made a motion authorizing the Mayor and Administrator to execute Resolution 2013-024
declaring costs to be assessed and ordering and preparing proposed assessments for the 2013
Bituminous Street Improvement. The motion was seconded by Loso and carried unanimously.
Park Terrace: Weyrens reported that the Park Terrace project was discussed to start in 2014. The
council needs to decide if they would want to do another benefit analysis for the assessment before the
proposed assessments are updated. The Council discussed whether or not the market has changed
enough to warrant another analysis and what the pros and cons are of the analysis.
Sabart stated that the City will have to restart the improvement process called 429. As part of the
process the Council will have to determine what portion of the project will be assessed. When questioned
what other Cities are assessing, Sabart responded that each community is unique. Each community
levies a different amount or whatever their practice is – so it’s hard to find a compromise of assessment
levels as part of the exercise.
The Council may still be comfortable with the project as approved in 2010, but projects costs would need
to be updated. A new special benefit analysis would be necessary to see how the market has changed.
Properties are for sale and there’s been change in the community, hopefully supplying updated data.
Loso commented when the Council interviewed attorneys, they were asked if in their opinion the market
has changed over the past year and one said and yes and one said no; therefore he is uncertain if a new
study is needed.
Frank stated he remembers at the time of the last benefit analysis discussion centered on a court case
that was pending. He questioned Sabart on the status of that matter. Sabart reported that assessment
contentions are typically settled outside of District Court. Sabart stated that he is uncertain as to which
case Frank is referring to, but it is in the Cities best interest to have a policy that is fair, enforceable and
can be replicated for future assessments.
As the next step in the improvement process is updating the feasibility report, Sabart stated the Council
will have to determine the scope of the project. The Council agreed to discuss the matter at a future
meeting when information is available on the costs and benefits of completing a new assessment
analysis. They will also review the design options at the same time.
Central Minnesota Housing Partnership Update: Weyrens updated the Council on the proposed housing
transition grant application. In a conversation with Cory Ehlert he stated that he has not established a
June 17, 2013
56
Page of
meeting with representatives of CSB or SJU but he has meet with the Chamber executive committee.
The Chamber is anticipating sending an email to the entire membership seeking support. Frank
reiterated that the EDA did want to see a buy-in from the real estate companies, bankers, etc. and not just
from the Chamber and CSB. Weyrens stated that the grand deadline is July 12 and it is anticipated that
he will attend the July 9 Council meeting with an update.
Administrator Reports
Potential Safety Hazard: Weyrens reported that during the last winter storm of the season, a shed
located at 111 Ash St E was damaged significantly creating a safety hazard. The Building Official and
Police Department have made numerous attempts to remedy the situation without success. Therefore,
the City Attorney was consulted to determine the best manner in which to resolve the safety hazard. The
first step to force the correction is for the Council to declare a public nuisance under MN Statute 463.17,
once the Council declares the nuisance, a court order will be prepared and served to the property owner.
If after the time provided in the court order the hazard is not removed, the City will have the ability to
Loso made a motion authorizing the
abate the nuisance and assess the costs to the property owner.
Mayor and Administrator to execute Resolution 2013-025, resolving to proceed under MN Statute
463.17 for Abatement of a Hazardous Building at 111 Ash St E. The motion was seconded by Wick
and carried unanimously.
Orderly Annexation: Weyrens reminded the Council that the City and Township have scheduled a joint
meeting for June 24, 2013 at 6:30 PM to continue the discussion on amending the Orderly Annexation
Agreement. The City Engineer has prepared updated maps that will be forwarded to the City and
Township Officials. Frank asked if there was way to speak in one voice to establish our goals and bottom
line to the Township. Schultz suggested that this should be a healthy discussion of where we’re headed,
what the township’s annexation policy is, current maps, what the township is thinking, and what the
township does or does not want the City to get involved with. It would cover what’s working in the OA
agreement, where St. Joseph sees its future from an expansion and annexation perspective and vice
versa.
Approved Annexations: Weyrens reported that the two recent annexations (Army Facility adjacent to CR
75 and CR 2 ROW) approved by the City and Township have been approved by MN Planning and have
been recorded at the County.
Mayor Reports
APO, Washington DC Trip: Schultz stated that he recently returned from participating with the St. Cloud
APO fly-in to Washington DC. The purpose of the trip was to meet with the area representatives to lobby
for federal transportation funds. Highlights included support for the Wobegon Trail with Senator
Klobacher. She spoke with the CEO of BNSF to help facilitate the extension. Senators Bachman and
Franken will also follow-up with BSNF. While in Washington he also discovered that the firm hired as
lobbyist for the area (David Turch) has an intern that is a junior at SJU and would be interested in
assisting the City. Schultz thanked Wick for filling in during his absence.
APO Retreat: Schultz reported that the APO Executive Committee participated in a retreat on June 13,
2013, to help overcome some difference. The retreat was led by an outside moderator facilitating a two
hour discussion. A division between and among some of the communities has developed and they area
to be centered on the proposed Heatherwood Road project, role of the APO staff, polices and
communication. Schultz stated that from his perspective, St. Cloud would like to change so there’s a
smoother way to offer things from any jurisdiction. All want to react more freely to some of the
environmental changes needed. Received well by both sides, they would like to eliminate the APO full
board, which would require a by-law change. It’s more from a communications perspective vs. a voting
perspective.
June 17, 2013
66
Page of
Council Reports
FRANK
Gold Cart Ordinance: Frank says that he sees more and more people wanting to use the “neighborhood
friendly vehicles” such as golf carts and ATV’s. A concerned resident was told that it would be discussed
at the second July meeting. Weyrens affirmed that the matter will be placed on the July 18 meeting, after
staff has an opportunity to review the final proposed draft.
CR 2 Detour: Frank questioned Sabart on the status of the detour for CR 2 as he still gets people pulling
in his cul-de-sac and asking how to get to Highway 94. Sabart stated that he contact the Stearns County
th
Highway Department, but he did have a discussion with them assuring that it will be open for the 4 of
July. Police Chief Jansky stated the sooner the better.
LOSO – No Report
SYMANIETZ – No Report
WICK – No Report
: Schultz made a motion to adjourn at 6:48 PM; seconded by Wick and passed
Adjourn
unanimously.
Judy Weyrens
Administrator
July 9, 2013
Page 1 of 4
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the St. Joseph City Council met in session on Monday, July 9,
2013 at 6:30 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall, opening the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Members Present: Mayor Richard Schultz, Councilors Dale Wick, Renee Symanietz, Steve Frank, Bob
Loso and City Administrator Judy Weyrens
Citv Representatives Present: Finance Director Lori Bartlett, Public Works Director Terry Thene and City
Engineer Randy Sabart, City Attorney Tom Jovanovich
Others Present: Ned Chapman, Tom Klein, Bob and Darlene Kroll, Bob and Kathy Lyon, Sheila Nahan,
Don and Gladys Schneider, Harry Pfannenstein.
Public Hearing. 2013 Bituminous Overlav Assessment Hearinq: Mayor Schultz called the hearing to order
and stated the purpose of the hearing to consider, and possibly adopt, the proposed assessment for the
2013 Bituminous Overlay Improvement which impacts the following areas: Baker Street, from 2nd Avenue
SE to 7th Avenue SE; 7th Avenue SE from Baker Street to Minnesota Street E; Ridgewood Court, from
Ridgewood Road (CR 134) to the cul-de-sac, approximately 1,100 feet west of Ridgewood Road (CR
134); Cedar Street E, from 1 st Avenue NE to Northland Drive; 1 st Avenue NE, from Cedar Street to Date
Street E; Date Street E, from College Avenue N (CSAH 2)to 1stAvenue NE; Date Street W, from 1st
Avenue NW to College Avenue N (CSAH 2); and 1 st Avenue NW, from CSAH 75 to Date Street W.
City Engineer Randy Sabart provided an overview of the proposed improvement and financial impact.
The proposed project includes the areas described above with the project design complete and bids
already opened. The proposed assessments are based on the actual contract prices and allocated based
on the adopted assessment policy. The following is a summary of the presentation:
• Total project cost—preliminary$424,700, final cost$ 408,600
• Special Assessment where calculated at 60%, based on front footage or in the commercial area,
by square footage due to the irregular lot sizes.
• Project to be assessed -$227,808; City subsidy$ 180,792
• Assessment per lineal foot$ 18.68 and $.012 per square foot.
• Proposed start date: Mid-August, early September; proposed completion: October 2013.
With regard to the proposed assessment, if the assessment roll is adopted at this meeting, the last day to
pay the assessment without interest is August 8, 2013 (30 days from the date of adoption). Assessment
paid after that date will be charged interest at a rate not to exceed 5.5% beginning from the date of
adoption. All assessments not paid within 30 days are submitted to the Stearns County Auditor for
collection with the real estate taxes over a ten year period. Residents may pay the balance at any time
after certification; however interest from November 15 through December 31 of the following year. Loso
questioned the interest charged on the improvement to which Weyrens stated that typically the City
charges 2% over the bond rate. Since the City has yet to bond for the improvements, the rate might be
reduced; however the rates have recently increased by one entire percent. Regardless the interest rate
will not exceed 5.5%.
Sabart stated that the City does have an assessment deferral provision and interest property owners
should contact the City Offices. The Ordinance does require that the assessment have a minimum value
of$ 3,000 and interest accumulates from that date of adoption. Sabart stated that assessment deferral is
different than assessment abatement, as the interest compounds and is due and payable upon property
sale. The provision applies to those over 65 and disabled.
Frank questioned how assessments on cul-de-sacs are computed. Sabart stated that the average width
of the pie-shaped lot is used for the front foot calculation. Weyrens stated that in addition to the public
hearing notice, all residents received an amortization schedule to illustrate the annual payment should
they choose to have the amount attached to their real estate taxes.
At this time the Mayor opened the floor to those wishing to speak.
July 9, 2013
Page 2 of 4
Bob Lyon, 131 7�h Ave SE, spoke in opposition to the project. He questioned why the residents on 7th are
charged more per lineal foot than those in other areas and why is one portion of the project assessed on
a square foot basis.
Sabart responded that the costs for each section of the roadways were divided by the footage of
abutting properties. Therefore, areas with more dense housing experience a lower per lineal square foot
assessment. With regard to the different methodologies used for the assessment, the goal of the
assessment policy to equitably assess residents for any improvements. The project on Ridgewood Road
consists of irregular shaped lots with some having minimal frontage but large lots. IN this case it is more
equitable to assess on a square foot basis. The project on Ridgewood Road is also a different project
and not just overlayed.
Lyon stated that it was not too long ago that the City reconstructed 7th Avenue and shortly after that the
City allowed the development of the field. The development of the field created excess truck traffic and in
his opinion if the road needs to be improved it is for that reason. He questioned the need for the
improvement.
Sabart responded that the road was reconstructed in 1992 and the City anticipates a minimum life
of 30 years, provided that maintenance is performed to extend the life of the road. The road is just
starting to show wear along the edges and the proposed improvement will extend the life of the road. If
the City does nothing and the road starts breaking away it no longer is a candidate for overly and it would
have to be reconstructed which is a more costly venture for both the City and resident. Sabart stated that
the road does not show an abnormal amount of wear and is typical of what one would see with a road the
age of 7th Avenue.
Lyon stated that the proposed improvement is a financial hardship for many people and just looking at the
residents along 7th Avenue, there are eight families over the age of 70, three single working moms, three
working couples, one empty house and one with a retired and working person. At this time Lyon
presented the Council with a petition signed by 14 property owners. The petition read "As property
owners, we are opposed to being charged for maintenance work to be done to 7�h Avenue SE from
Minnesota Street to Baker Street and 2nd Ave SE to 7�h Ave SE. In the past we have paid for the
installation of these roadways. We feel it is the Cities responsibility to maintain them once installed. This
is a maintenance issue and should not be the responsibility of the affected property owners. Lyons stated
that in his opinion the residents keep paying more in taxes and fees, but then the City turns around and
provided relief to a business like Coborn's.
Bob Kroll, 125 7�n Ave SE, spoke in opposition to the proposed improvement. He stated that it is his
opinion that the street would not need to be repaired if the City would have limited construction traffic fo
the housing development.
Ned Chapman, Summit Management, 333 North Main Street, Stillwater, MN, spoke in support of the
project. He stated that he represents the owner of the Manufactured Community Park Home and they
encourage the improvement and request the Council consider adding Elm Street to the project.
Chapman stated that annually they survey the residents in the park to see what they are looking for and it
always comes back to curb appeal. The property owner understands that he would be assessed
proportionately for the additional work but would like the potential explored. He stated that the property
owner would also like to contract with the vendor to improvement the provide streets within the park.
Sabart responded that Elm Street was not included as the watermain under that section needs
replacement and the City was anticipating replacing as development required. Additionally, one of the
benefiting properties is located in St. Joseph Township and the property would have to be annexed first.
Schultz encouraged the property owner to meet with Weyrens and Sabart to determine if a project in the
future is feasible.
Being no further comments from the public,the public hearing closed at 7:00 pm and discussion
was open to the Council members.
Frank asked, if 7'h Avenue is of most concern, what about the sewer/water and life expectancy. The
utilities haven't exceeded their useful life (50 years). These were constructed in 1970-1979 and another
July 9, 2013
Page 3 of 4
15-20 years is expected from this road. The overlay is made to prolong the 30-year-old life cycle of the
street, not to fix a broken road. Sabart said with infrastructure, each property owner the benefits
historically is required to install and maintain that infrastructure.
Frank questioned the City Attorney, Tom Jovanovich, about the use of a benefit test for implementing
assessments. It is his understanding that most Cities use some sort of analysis to determine the cost
sharing unless the City has the financial wherewithal to pay for the improvement. While the amount each
City may charge varies, everyone's taxes will still increase. Jovanovich stated that it does vary between
cities what portion of the assessment is charged. It is becoming more common to prepare some type of
analysis before assessing the property as courts have ruled in the Cities behalf when this practice is
utilized.
Bob Lyon asked what happens if they leave 7`h Avenue alone? Sabart responded that the road will
deteriorate quicker with alligator cracking and snow plows picking up pieces of the road when snow
plowing. Then you get to a deteriorated point where it costs more and iYs no longer able to be patched by
blacktop and sidewalks need to be added, maybe with utilities. 16`h Avenue was replaced in 2010 and the
special assessment 60% rate was$90/LF. That project included curb, gutter, and street where the city
paid the storm sewer costs. Due to the current economy, there is favorable pricing in infrastructure
improvements. Lyon commented that he's never"admired"a street and it didn't deter him from buying his
property with only a gravel driveway. Attorney Jovanovich pointed out that home resale values are
impacted by$8,000-10,000 with paved streets.
Symanietz asked what happens with the State of Minnesota invoices. Weyrens said they will be
assessed to the property and when they sell, it will be collected at that time.
Bob Kroll requested that the City pay a larger portion of the assessment since the City allowed the truck
traffic on 7th Ave SE. It is not the residents fault the street needs repair. Frank sympathizes with the
situation but it can't be quantified. Sabart said that there are not tests to perform that show accelerated
damage. Most of the streets in town are seven to nine-ton design whereas signs were placed in the
neighborhood that it was a five-ton spring road limit so law enforcement had grounds to cite a party. You
need to balance the community needs, a desire to protect the streets, and commercial interests(ie:
garbage collection, parcel delivery vehicles, school buses). However, this doesn't suggest that road limits
should be increased because of an overlay. The last reconstruction of 17th Avenue was in 1992, and
included sewer, water, and street.
Mayor Schultz commented that Sabart, Jovanovich and City Staff are simply messengers for the Council.
The Council represents the residents. The deliverers of information are there at the Council's request.
He is not familiar with the traffic situation of 7th. He has heard the concern that 40%of the City doesn't
pay property taxes. The legislative people understand our situation and it's come up consistently. The
City is following a proactive street maintenance cycle to avoid future larger costs. If residents want the
City to pick up more of the tab, everyone's taxes will increase and 56%will pay and 44%will not. You
can wait a few years(ie: Park Terrace) because they are waiting to package utilities and streets. The
City is trying to avoid an overall reconstruction for these streets. Council members question expenditures
that come across their desks and they make the best decisions they can with the information provided,
not always being right or wrong. Realizing the demographics as an aging community with young kids,
pipes and streets still wear out.
Schultz continued that Summit ManagemenYs req uest would be more feasible at a later time. Regarding
Elm Street and the properties on the Northeast side, the additional work over and above the current
project would be hard to incorporate at this point in the project. Perhaps discussions are held next year in
order to work through some of the issues with the annexation process. Summit is asking to piggy back
with the contractor to provide efficiencies. Sabart assured that they can work with Summit to help
negotiate the prices as provided to the City. Wick questioned the deferment for age 65+, how the amount
needs to be over$3,000, yet not a lot of assessments in this project qualify for that. Any changes to that
would need a City ordinance change and the City couldn't make an adjustment for this instance. What
would be the right value for hardship? Weyrens could research what other communities do for deferral.
July 9, 2013
Page 4 of 4
Wick commented if people come forward with this need, it could be further researched. Historically,
Weyrens suggested that only two or three have been deferred, mostly because of the interest. Frank
commented that the Public Works Department has purchased older used equipment. Thene shared that
trucks are sometimes 15 years old at purchase.
Loso looked at the cost of the project borne to the property owner and it seems as if everyone is hung up
on percentages. He believes surrounding cities may be paying more. Weyrens mentioned St. Cloud just
did 50% on a street project and commented that when people are looking at purchasing a home, they
notice the condition of the street or if it will be assessed in the future.
Loso made a motion to authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute Resolution 2013-026
adopting the final assessment roll as present, establishing a payment term of 10 years and an
interest rate not to exceed 5.5%. The motion was seconded by Wick.
Ayes: Wick, Loso, Symanietz, Frank
Nays: None Abstain: Schultz Motion Carried 4:0:1
Loso made a motion to authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute Resolution 2013-027
accepting the low bid of Knife River in the amount of$312,501.25. The motion was seconded by
Schultz and carried unanimously.
Adjourn: Loso made a motion to adjourn at 7:45 PM; seconded by Symanietz and passed
unanimously.
Judy Weyrens
Administrator