Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 [10] Oct 16October 16, 2013 Page 1 of 5 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in special session on Wednesday, October 16, 2013 at 6 :30 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Mayor Rick Schultz, Councilors Dale Wick, Renee Symanietz, Bob Loso, Steve Frank, City Administrator Judy Weyrens City Representatives: City Engineer Randy Sabart, City Attorney Tom Jovanovich, Finance Director Lori Bartlett, Chief Joel Klein Others Present: Janice Pfannenstein, Jim Bruemmer, Noreen Loso, Roman & Dorothy Meyer, Rob & Judy Rolling, Scott Brever, Ross & Mary Rieke, Dave Keller, William Brummer, Greg Hartung, Nathan Schatz, Marlys Dobis, Bill & Sally Lorentz, Andy Loso, Kevin & Joanne Evens, Ronald Eiynck, Andy Ziebol, 011ie Lesnick Approve Agenda: Frank made a motion to approve the agenda as presented; seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. Public Improvement Hearing: Mayor Schultz called the hearing to order and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider improvement of the public street and alley rights -of -way and associated public utilities located in the front and rear yards along the north side of Minnesota Street (CSAH 2) between a point 400 feet west of 4th Ave NW and 3rd Ave NW, along 4th Avenue NW between Minnesota Street W (CSAH 2) and Birch Street W, along 5th Avenue NW between 4th Avenue NW and a point 200 feet north of Birch Street W, along Ash Street W between 5th Avenue NW and 2nd Ave NW, and along Old Highway 52 between Birch Street W and a point 200 feet northwest of Birch Street W by constructing sanitary sewer, water main, storm drain, grading, bituminous street with concrete curb and gutter, and surface restoration improvements pursuant to MN Statute § 429.011 to 429.111 City Engineer Randy Sabart presented the following information: • The proposed project is similar in nature to the project that was proposed in 2011, but after a public hearing and Council consideration the project was tabled. Six months have passed since the last public hearing, and the City is required to conduct a new series of hearings, of which the first is the proposed improvement hearing. • The project area includes: 4th Ave NW; 5th Ave NW; Ash St W; Birch St W; Minnesota Street and alternates Old Highway 52 and Birch St w. • Existing conditions include: • Streets were reconstructed in 1985 and seal coated in 1997 and is an urban road section designed for five to seven ton capacity. Over time the pavement surface has deteriorated with alligator /fatigue cracking, large transverse cracking, and weathering. • Drainage includes 12 to 15 inch storm sewer on 4th Ave NW (constructed in 1960 and 1986), 12 inch sewer on Birch Street, storm drains north through Hollow Park discharging into the South Fork Watab River; larger volumes of runoff observed at Ash St at 4th Ave NW (intersection), ponding observed on Birch Street near 4th Ave NW. • Sanitary Sewer is a combination of 12 or 8 inch clay pipes most of which were installed in the 1960's and some areas have no dedicated public utility easement. • Water includes a combination of copper mains 1 to 1.25 inches in diameter (constructed in the 60's) and 2 to 4 inch cast iron mains (constructed in the 60's). • Deficiencies in the utility system include: Sewer pipes that have been televised to have root intrusion, pipes that are cracked and broken, pipes with open pipe joints or are offset and some with protruding /cut -in service taps. In addition, the City does not have an underlying easement for the sewer pipe in certain areas. Water service has inadequate water mains, not meeting the standards in place today, existing pipes are located in front boulevards and not in the street, the City receives complaints of low water pressure during flushing, and compromised fire protection as sufficient pressure cannot be obtained from the existing water mains. • Proposed project alternatives include: October 16, 2013 Page 2 of 5 • ALTERNATIVE ONE: construct a new 8 to 10 inch sanitary sewer main in the street which would require new service lines as the service would move to the front of the home and abandon existing sewer and manholes; construct a new 8 inch water main in the street; reconstruct storm sewer along 4th Ave and Birch Street by extending new storm sewer to 5th Ave on Ash St.; reconstruct 32 foot wide urban section road and reconstruct driveways. • ALTERNATIVE TWO: includes rehabilitate existing 8 inch sanitary sewer mains by cure in -place pipes, applying a coating on manholes and inverts. This would not require re- direction of individual sewer service lines. Additionally new 8 inch water main would be constructed, reconstruct sanitary sewer as in option one and reconstruct a 32 foot wide urban section road. The City would need to acquire utility easements before commencing any work. • ALTERNATIVE THREE: includes flattening slopes at Memorial Park with excess grading material generated by the project; Old Highway 52 improvements to include: construct 150 LF new 8 inch sanitary sewer to locate sewer to the street from the side yard, reconstruct 8 inch water main and reconstruct disturbed part of the street; improvements to Birch Street W by reconstructing 12 inch clay pipe and 8 inch water main and resurfacing the disturbed road section. Proposed improvements include: 32 foot wide urban section street, driveway reconstruction in kind, turf restoration, and utility improvements. Preliminary Assessment Assumption: Assessments are based on benefitting footage for street and number of units for utilities; property owners independently contract to reconnect sewer services with the city considering providing a reimbursement based on receipts (has yet to be determined by the City Council), no water main assessments for residents on 5th Ave due to existing 6 inch water main; however, water services are assessed. Sabart also provided information on Ordinance 38 which allows for assessment deferral under certain circumstances. Sabart presented a proposed project cost for each alternative presented. The tables below are summaries of the total costs for each option as well as projected assessment rates. Project Option Special Assessment Income City Subsidy Total Project Cost Reconstruction $ 903,300 (43 %) $ 1,170,100 (56.4 %) $ 2,073,400 Rehabilitation $ 942,000 (45.1 %) $ 1,146,800 (54.9 %) $ 2,088,800 Project Assessment Rates: Sewer Reconstruction Est. Assessable Special Assmt Footage/Units Rate Sewer Rehabilitation Est. Assessable Special Assmt Foota a /Units Rate Street & Restoration (60/40) 5,217 LF $ 95.00 /LF 5,217 LF $ 90.36/t_F Memorial Park Slope $ 0 $ 0 Clinton Village Sewer 0 Units $ 0 0 Units $ 0 Sanitary Sewer Main (60/40) 49 Units $ 3,911 unit 49 Units $ 5,197 /unit Sanitary Sewer Services 46 Units $ 0 46 Units $ 0 Water Main (60/40) 33 Units $ 4,622 unit 33 Units $ 4,619 /unit Water Main Realign 5th Ave 0 Units $ 0 0 Units $ 0 Water Services (60/40) 44 Units $ 1,444 unit 44 Units $ 1,442 /unit Storm Sewer $ 0 $ 0 Alternate A — Old Hwy 52 $ 0 $ 0 Alternate B — Birch St W $ 0 $ 0 October 16, 2013 Page 3 of 5 Mayor Schultz stated that the City Council is looking to find a solution for all and he requested that residents limit their comments to five minutes or less, no personal attacks, the hearing is not a two way conversation or a question and answer session. After the public hearing is closed the Council will discuss the testimony from the residents. Kevin Evans 35 — 5th Ave NW questioned the average assessment presented and if $18,000 was the top end, low end or average price for the assessments for an 80ft lot. Ron Eiynck, 13 4th Ave NW, approached the council asking where the City well is. Eiynck stated the water purity and taste was going down considerably and seems to get worse every year. On a good day they can smell the chlorine and he showed brown water. When the work does get done, he asked whether the water problem was going to get better. Eiynck asked about what happened to the appraisal that was done in 2011 where the assessments were around 4 -5 K. He asked how the number would be back up to the 18k mark in just two years. Steve Niedenfuer 202 5th Ave NW, approached the Council stating that he came to the meeting with an open mind and was surprised to hear that the City is proposing the same project as they did in 2011. He asked why the Council voted it down last time. He stated that the assessment must be greater than or equal to the benefit. He went on to say that this is a fundamental theme. Niedenfuer read the League of Minnesota's issued warning. Niedenfuer went on to read the provision regarding a taking of property. He stated again that the benefit must equal the assessment. He does not feel that the Council is listening to the people. Schultz closed the public hearing at 7:35 PM and opened it up for Council discussion. Wick asked if the water quality was due to the smaller pipe. Sabart stated the wells themselves are not pushing the water, the water tower does that. The consumption of the water transfers the waters. He stated that the discolored water is due to the 60 plus years of accumulation of iron and magnesium build up over time. When staff flushes the system, particles break loose and flow through the residential systems. He stated there is not a more effective way for staff to flush the system. He went on to say that the residents may not want to drink that water, but it would be okay to do so. Sabart stated that water provided by Eiynck is not what is being produced. The purpose of flushing is to break loose any iron or manganese that builds up, purging it from the system. Frank stated that he lives in Clinton Village and he does not have the same significant water issues. He felt that the city has done a much better job of letting the residents know when the flushing is going to occur. He stated that the city has to submit water samples to the state for testing and the results are on the webpage. Sabart reiterated that the city must produce a water quality report and have it readily available for public review. Sabart addressed the question on whether there are any smaller options for the assessment stating that are certainly smaller options, but those come with challenges. Sabart stated the City can no longer cost effectively repair the road and it is not a candidate for overlay due to age. No one wants to dig into a new street during the life cycle. He stated the cost of the project can be smaller, but is not sure if the utility system will hold up that long. Sabart does not think so. Frank stated the Council is cognizant of the issue and of the costs in terms of sod and seed. He asked about residents' ability to install sprinkler systems. Sabart stated property owners are allowed to install certain items in the public right -of -way in this case 60 feet. He went on to say that it is still personal property, so the City will send out a newsletter to request that the owners take out the personal property and they can be replaced after the project is complete. The City does not pay additional to salvage personal property. October 16, 2013 Page 4 of 5 Frank asked about the costs that do not directly benefit the residents and asked who pays for that; for example the slope in the park. Sabart responded that City is responsible and they are not going to be assessed. Frank asked what the present statuses of the assessments are. Jovanovich stated that the City has been working with the League of MN Cities. According to the League the system is broke due to society becoming more litigious, it is becoming harder to fund finance projects. The league has proposed alternatives: 1. Conduct the public hearing after the costs are determined, and wait the 30 days to determine the amount of any appeals. This method removes some of the financial risk to the City. 2. With regard to the appraisal done two years ago, the city has talked to four different appraisers and they feel there are benefits to the underground utilities. All the appraisers felt that the Court will find the assessment will come in between 10 and 20 percent of the market value of the property. With all the improvements. Just the drive by assessment will cost $8,000 to $14,000. 3. If the assessment is less than 20% of the entire project cost, the City must use a different type of bonding for the improvement which could result in a reverse referendum, stopping the project as well. Jovanovich stated that he represents nine different communities. Some Cities assess 100% of the project cost as they accept that when the improvements go by their home they have to pay; others use a percentage method. When it is paid by the City then everyone is paying. It comes down to what is the fairest manner in which to assess. Historically, the City of St. Joseph has assessed 60% of the improvement project. Typically he stated the actual assessments come in below 60% in projects. Jovanovich stated that he spoke with the appraiser that did the assessment two years ago and she stated that she could easily double the assessment without even looking at. She is basing that on the market. If a neighborhood starts experiencing backups, then 100 percent of the project can be assessed. He talked to another assessor where they are having trouble with a community septic system and property is not moving as they are having some sewer issues and it has become known. Jovanovich clarified that he is not saying that one system is better or worse, it comes down to equity and what is fair. He felt that on a long term basis, the council is looking at putting funding towards projects like these, but that it will take many years to do build up the funding. Frank stated that the city is working building more of an economic base. Frank stated that he is not using this as a threat, but if nothing is done and the infrastructure fails, the City could assess the entire cost. Schultz clarified that the City does not want the system to fail and that the Council is trying to be proactive. Sabart stated that for a sewer system that is working the way it should, cities would typically have to jet clean once every three years. In Park Terrace, staff has had to jet clean portions monthly. Every other year they apply a chemical treatment to help root intrusion and in one area they must clean monthly to try and prevent intrusion. Frank stated that one area of concern is the one inch water line for the Fire Department regarding safety. Sabart stated that the minimum is six inch for short run. The fire department is aware of the issue and has used alternatives as a work around. Weyrens stated that the City is required to chlorinate the system and when the City first started chlorinating all the residents in the old sections of the City experience discolored water. The chlorination was stopped and the City developed a plan to replace all the old water main. Park Terrace is one of the last sections where the old water pipe is still in service. Once the water lines were replaced, the water was no longer discolored when flushing the system or during the chlorination process. October 16, 2013 Page 5 of 5 Loso made a motion authorizing the Mayor and Administrator to execute Resolution 2013 -040 Ordering Park Terrace Improvement and Preparation of plans for option 1, replacing the sanitary sewer lines into the street. The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. Discussion: Wick stated that in talking to impacted residents, he has not received any complaints that the project is not needed; rather the comments have been about the cost sharing. Schultz questioned if the City will need to secure easements for the option selected, to which Sabart fewer than if the project included leaving the pipes in the current location. Upon being question about the cost of designing the project, Sabart estimated the cost to be around $ 100,000.00. Adiourn: Motion made by Wick to adjourn at 8:15 PM; seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. Judy eyr(rns ` Admin strator THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK