HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 [09] Sep 23September 23, 2013
Page 1 of 3
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in special session
on Monday, September 23, 2013 at 5:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall.
Members Present: Mayor Rick Schultz. Councilors Dale Wick, Renee Symanietz, Bob Loso, Steve
Frank.
City Representatives Present: City Engineer Randy Sabart, City Attorney Tom Jovanovich, Finance
Director Lori Bartlett, Public Works Director Terry Thene.
2104 Park Terrace Improvement: Weyrens stated that the Council has been discussing the proposed
improvement for the Park Terrace Subdivision and in July authorized the City Engineer to update the
2011 Feasibility Report. At this time the report has been updated and the Council is in a position to
decide if the project will move forward to the public hearing phase. Loso questioned Sabart if the
proposed project cost has increased since 2011. Sabart responded that the prices were increased the
inflationary standard of 3 %; however the total project cost has been reduced. The reduction is a result of
the removal of the costs for individual property service connections. The original project cost included a
budget of $ 150,000 for reconnecting residents who had to change their service location from the rear
yard to front yard. The Council had requested that this item be removed from the project costs. Schultz
questioned if it is anticipated whether or not the prices will keep increasing, to which Sabart stated that
the question is whether they will increase beyond the inflationary factor used to determine the probable
costs.
Frank questioned if the work in North Dakota reduces the contractors available in Minnesota or if the price
becomes escalated. Sabart stated that contractors generally have preferred to work locally due to the
cost of relocation.
Sabart stated that the project sill includes two options, one a complete reconstruction, replacing the sewer
lines in the back yards with new lines in the street. The other project is rehabilitation of the sewer line and
would include lining. Sabart discussed the different options within each project as well.
Sabart stated that the project is illustrated with a 60/40 cost sharing but when all the costs are considered
the City is assessing 43 %, (for the option reconstructing the pipes in the street). Sabart presented
illustrations using the various options including 70/30 split, assessing 21.9% of the total project cost and
40/60, assessing 29% of the total project costs. Sabart also presented the same assessment ratios if the
Council opted for option 2, lining the sewer pipes. The assessments are based on a per front foot basis
for street and per unit basis for the water and sewer as has been the practice of the City. The only time
the City has assessed per unit for the street is if an area included disproportionate lot frontages and
square footage, such as on Ridgewood Court.
Frank requested Sabart elaborate on the merits of the project and what problem is being solved by
constructing the improvement project. Sabart responded that the project is being considered as the
streets in the Park Terrace Subdivision are 28 years old, showing extreme wear. The road conditions are
beyond what could be resolved through an overlay. Additionally, the water and sewer lines appear to be
inadequate and are in excess of 60 years in age. The water lines are between one and one fourth in
diameter and a typical water main is 8 inches. The small diameter piping does not provide for adequate
fire protection and residents experience low water pressure. The current water system in the Park
Terrace Subdivision do meet the current requirements of the Minnesota Department of Health. Areas of
the sewer line have been televised and cracking is visible. In addition, one section of sewer pipe is
located in the rear yard and the City does not have an easement for maintenance or repair. To answer
the question as to what is being accomplished by completing the project, Sabart stated the road is being
improved, the water and sewer system are being reconstructed to meet current requirements and provide
adequate access for public safety, the sewer system will be constructed within public right of way and the
drainage system will be enhanced.
Sabart reiterated that the section of sewer main parallel to Birch Street is located in the rear yards of
residents with dedicated easements. Residents have allowed staff to complete typical maintenance, but
September 23, 2013
Page 2 of 3
before the City could consider reconstructing the pipe in the current location, a dedicated easement must
be secured. He stated that the City in the past had attempted to secure easements without success. A
second section in the project area near 4th Ave NW includes sewer lines in the backyard as well with
some existing obstacles. When questioned if the City would cover the costs for relocating the sewer
service, Sabart recommended the Council provide an allowance that residents can be reimbursed rather
than having the City complete the re- direction as part of the project. Weyrens stated that the City in the
past has included allowances for unique circumstances, such as the booster pumps on Hill Street.
The Council questioned if the sewer line is relocated, will the existing pipe be removed. Sabart stated
that the manholes would be filled and the pipes capped, abandoning them in place. The Council
discussed the merits of televising the remaining portion of the water line between Old Highway 52 and Yd
Ave NW. Schultz questioned what action is being requested of the Council. Weyrens responded that
staff has provided all the requested information regarding the proposed improvement and now it is time
for the Council to decide if they desire to move the project forward and if so, what cost sharing ratio will
be used for the public hearing.
Wick and Symanietz stated that it is their opinion that the Council needs to be consistent and the
residents should be assessed 60% of the cost as in past projects. Loso stated that the Council needs to
be able to show increased benefit and it is his opinion that the City cannot. The proposed project is twice
the size of most projects the City has constructed in the past, therefore the assessments are much larger.
Loso further stated that the assessment policy is just guide and the Council must be reasonable.
City Attorney Tom Jovanovich discussed the impact of inadequate services or failing services on home
values, particularly if a property is for sale. In talking to appraisers, this is already occurring, particularly
with septic systems. The City does have an area where it is documented that the water is inadequate
and some of the sewer lines are faulty, this does provide for benefit. Jovanovich stated that he has talked
to numerous attorneys and /or appraisers regarding benefit and they do assign a value to underground
improvements. The assessor used by the City in 2011 admittedly stated to the Council that if the sewer
line would fail, the City could assess 100% of the cost. The assessment process allows for residents to
appeal their assessment through district court and it is difficult to determine how a judge will rule. If the
City receives objections to the assessment and project, the City has the ability to delay the project until
the residents agree to the project. The Council is not committed to the project until the project is awarded
to a contractor. Weyrens stated that the City in the past has conducted the assessment hearing after
receiving the bids, but before awarding the contract to minimize financial risk. Jovanovich encourage the
Council to continue this process.
By consensus the Council agreed to schedule the Public Improvement Hearing for the proposed
reconstruction of street and utilities for the Park Terrace Subdivision on October 16, 2013 at 6:30 PM.
For the purpose of the hearing the assessments will be illustrated with a 60% resident participation,
assessing 43% of the overall project.
Sewer Extension — Sabart stated that he had been previously asked to evaluate the capacity of the sewer
pipes that would be used to serve the area adjacent to CR 2 /Minnesota St W, known as the Gateway
area. The analysis has been completed and it was determined that a large portion of the Gateway
property could be served with a sewer extension project; however, if the Gateway property is served the
property south and east of the area (Monastery and College of St. Benedict), would not be able to receive
services without a significant expansion. Sabart stated that he along with members of the staff met with
representatives of the College and Monastery to discuss their future plans as it relates to the need for
sewer capacity. At this meeting they indicated that they did not have a need for sewer services for the
open space as the College does not intend to increase the student population and the expansion would
be academic buildings which could receive services internally and through the east. Therefore, Sabart
stated the sewer could be extended through Park Terrace to serve Gateway Commons.
Frank questioned what happens if a business located in Gateway area is a high water user, does that
change the amount of capacity that would be available. Sabart stated that a high user would limit the
capacity, but it is a large are that can be served. Sabart reminded the Council that extending the sewer
September 23, 2013
Page 3 of 3
through Park Terrace is a short term solution and at some point the main extension will be needed and
the City will have fewer property owners to cover the financial burden. He also stated that the City would
have some holding costs in the project that will eventually be absorbed by future development.
Water Main Break: Sabart reported that earlier this year the water main installed in Hill Street had a
significant break and it was determined that the pipe was pitted and thinned. The pipe that broke was
installed in 2005 and staff has been looking at reasons for the break as new pipe does not break. One of
the options that could have caused the break is a stray current from the main gas line. This phenomenon
is not unique to St. Joseph as other communities are experiencing the same issues. There is a Canadian
company that can complete an analysis to determine if there is stray current; however the cost for St.
Joseph to have the small segment tested is $ 14,000 to $ 15,000. At this point the City does not know if
there are additional leaks or faults and the only way to determine is to complete the testing. The testing
will determine the thickness of the wall of the pipe which is an indication of the condition of the pipe.
Unfortunately the City has a short window to respond as the City can take advantage of the Company
being in the area, avoiding additional travel costs.
Sabart stated that the gas industry does have standards for cathodic protection and depending on the
results the City could try and recoup the costs from the gas company. The City would have to complete
the testing before approaching the gas company. Jovanovich stated that he was worked with some
municipalities who are seeking relief from the gas company. If the testing indicates that it is not the result
of the gas line, the City could look at the pipe manufacturer. When questioned the time frame for
receiving the test results, Sabart responded three to four weeks.
Schultz made a motion authorize the acoustic testing of the water mail on Hill Street as presented
at a cost not to exceed $ 15,000. The motion was seconded by Loso and passed unanimously.
Meeting Schedule: Schultz stated that he would like Councilors to think about the meeting schedule of
the Council and if the Council meets too much or not enough, whether the day of the week the meeting is
held is the right night or the right time for the meeting to start. He is not suggesting that the Council
should eliminate or reduce their activity, rather how the Council can be more efficient. Would the Council
be better served with more workshops? Frank stated the he supports all meetings to be televised,
regardless how they are labeled. Symanietz stated that she thinks they should continue to meet twice a
month a meeting can always be canceled due to lack of business. Wick stated that if you have to cancel
a meeting people question why a meeting was canceled, so either way questions will arise. The Council
agreed to continue this discussion at a future meeting.
Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 7:15 PM.
*ud yr ns
rator
This page intentionally left blank