Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 [10] Oct 30 I I I ! October 30, 2002 Page 1 ,of 7 I Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of SI. Joseph met in special sessidn on Tuesday, October 30, 2002 at 6:00 PM in the SI. Joseph City Hall. I 1 Members Present: Mayor Larry Hosch. Councilors Bob Loso, Cory Ehlert, Kyle Schneider, AI Rassier: Administrator Judy Weyrens. City Representatives Present: City Engineer Joe Bettendorf, City Attorney John Scherer. Others Present: Gary Utsch, Dan Pueringer, Evelyn Pueringer, Doris Johnson, Lou Krebsbach, Jean Dehler, Dick Taufen, Tom Brannan, Tim Borresch, Joyce Stock, Dick Stock, Elmer Reber, Kelly Reber, Elaine Imholte, Burt Zimmer, Nel Pfannenstein, Bob Pfannenstein, Jim Schwegel, Marion Menzhuber,i Claude Menzhuber, Carol Tamm. I. I SE Utilitv Improvement. Assessment Hearino: Mayor Hosch called the hearing to order and stated th~ purpose of the hearing is to consider the proposed assessment for the improvement of the sanitary I sewer, water main, and drainage facilities, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 429.011 to 429.111 of an ¡ improvement on East Minnesota Street (CR 134) from 17'h Avenue SE to 88th Avenue, on Lynx Road I from 16'h Avenue SE to East Minnesota Street, and on 88th Avenue from County State Aid Highway 75 to a point 1,000 feet south of East Minnesota Street. ' i Mayor Hosch turned the floor over to the City Engineer Joe Bettendorf. Bettendorf presented those present with the following cost summary of the SE Utility Extension Project: I Construction Summary Prelim inary Construction - Streets/Storm Sewer Construction - Sanitary SewerIWater Contingency Financing Engineering Total $ 50,895 379,118 43,001 51,602 77.402 602,018 Assessment Rates Residential Street Sanitary Sewer & Water Main Truck Sewer $ 33.12/ft 14,986/ Acre 713/ Acre Projected Revenue Special Assessments Oversizing Street & Storm Sewer City Share Storm Sewer $ 449,592 110,426 17 ,947 24,053 Final $ 55,198 312,302 18,375 18,375 66.150 470,400 $ 33.00 / ft 11,304 / Acre 713/Acre $ 362,293 66,240 17,866 23,981 ¡ Bettendorf stated that the majority of pipe installation will be completed shortly.' However, due to the cold wet October, the storm sewer and street restoration for Lynx Road will be postponed until Spring of 2004. Bettendorf stated that while it was anticipated to be completed before the end of 2002 the weather as'not cooperated and it is his recommendation to not begin the work until spring. At this time Bettendorf opened the floor to questions from those present. Gary Utsch of 125 - 1 ih Avenue SE questioned if it is normal procedure for the City to annex a road that is in dire need of repair. Utsch stated that he is being assess for a portion of the repairs to Lynx Road which should have been repaired by SI. Joseph Township. ¡ Bettendorf stated that the annexation of Lynx Road was not the first road in poor shape that was annexed by the City and later repaired at the City's expense. Joseph Street / 9th Avenue SE is another example of a road that needed repair before it was annexed. October 30, 2002 Page 2 017 Ehlert stated that he recalls previous correspondence with SI. Joseph Township where the City requested the Township repair Lynx Road. However, he is uncertain as to the outcome. Loso stated that the City currently cost shares the taxes for annexed property and he would be supportive of looking into I reimbursement from SI. Joseph Township for a portion of the road repairs. Weyrens agreed to review this matter and report back to the Council. Gary Utsch of 125 - 17'h Avenue SE questioned why he is being assessed for the project when it will not be completed until the spring of 2003 and if the City researched grant alternaUves for all the City projects not just the College Avenue/County Road 121 project. Bettendorf responded that it is not unusual for a project to be completed before the final assessment hearing. Many times the final wear course of bituminous is not laid until the spring, allowing the road to settle. Bettendorf further stated that if the City would wait until the project is completely finished before assessing the property owner, capitalized interest would need to be included when bonding so that the City could make the first bond payments. Capitalized interest would significantly increase the assessments charged to the affected property owners. City Attorney John Scherer stated that Minnesota Statues grants municipalities to assess projects when the cost of the improvement can reasonably be calculated. At this time the City has the final cost for the project and is using their statutory authority to assess the cost back to Ithe property owner. Ideally the City would prefer to assess a project that is complete but that is not possible in this case. As far as grant opportunities, Bettendorf stated that the City will never dismiss a grant opportunity but they are very competitive and the SE Utility Improvement did not qualify for funding. Dan Pueringer of 206 - 1 ffh Avenue SE questioned when the assessment must be paid before interestis charges. Weyrens stated that residents have the option of paying part, all or none of the assessment. Any portion of the assessment paid within 30 days of the date of adoption of the assessment will not be charged interest. All assessment balances outstanding on November 30, 2002 will be charged interest starting from October 30. Unpaid assessment balances will be payable over a 15 year period, at an interest rate of 6%. Hosch made a motion to close the public hearing at 7:25 PM; seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously. I Loso made a motion to adopt Resolution 2002-_ adopting the final assessment roll for the 2002 SE Utility Improvement. The motion was seconded by Rassier and pass,ed unanimously. Resolution 2002-_ Resolution Adopting Assessment SE Utility Improvements WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the coum;iI has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement of the sanitary sewer, water main, and drainage facilities, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 429.011 to 429.111 of an improvement on East Minnesota Street (CR 134) from 17th Avenue SE to 88th Avenue, on Lynx Road from 16th Avenue SE to East Minnesota Street, and on 88th Avenue from County State Aid Highway 75 to a point 1,000 feet south of East Minnesota Street. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA: 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. I 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2003, and shall bear interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this I I I I October 30, 2002 Page 3 bf7 , ¡ I resolution until December 31, 2003. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest 'for one year on all unpaid installments. ¡ 3. The owner of any property.so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessmel)t to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the city treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city I treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. ' - ....,"'" =.p,~",.","~-"""C:>'""~""'?_':>.}\'-:4>~'''''-'~' . 4. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor 10 be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid ove( in the same manner as other municipal taxes. ¡ j 2002 Interior Street Improvement. Assessment Hearino: Mayor Hosch opened (he public hearing at 7130 and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider the proposed assessment of street, curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main for the improvement of First Avenue NW from , Minnesota Street W to CSAH 75; Second Avenue NW from Minnesota Street W to CSAH 75; Birch Street West from Second Avenue NW to College Avenue N; Ash Street W from Second Avenue NW to College Avenue North; Ash Street E from College Avenue N to Third Avenue NE; Second Avenue NE from Ash Street E to Alley North; Alley between Second Avenue NW and First Avenue from mid-block to Birch i Street W; Alley between Ash Street Wand Birch Street W from mid-block east to First Avenue NW; Alley between Second Avenue NW and First Avenue NW from mid-block north to Ash Street West; Alley 1 between Minnesota Street Wand Ash Street W from mid-block west to Second Avenue NW; Alley between Minnesota Street Wand Ash Street W from mid-block west to First Avenue NW; Alley between First Avenue NW and College Avenue N from Ash Street W to Birch Street W; Alley between Ash Street Wand Birch Street West from First Avenue NW to College Avenue N; Alley between College Avenue i North and First Avenue NE from Ash Street E to CSAH 75;Alley between Ash Street E and CSAH 75 from College Avenue N to First Avenue NE; Alley between First Avenue NE and Second Avenue NE from Ash Street E to Alley N; Alley between Ash Street E and CSAH 75 from First Avenue NE to Second Avenue NE; Alley between Ash Street E and CSAH 75 From Second Avenue NE to Third Avenue NE. I , i Mayor Hosch turned the floor over to City Engineer Joe Bettendorf. City Engineer Joe Bettendorf presented the following cost summary of the proposed 2002 Street Improvement: Construction Summary Preliminary Final Street Construction Water main Curb & Gutter Overlay Sanitary Sewer Total $ 572,220 240,495 71,050 48,675 200.125 1,132,565 $ 658,027 233,830 84,591 30,168 152.230 1,158,846 Project Cost Summary Construction Contingency Engineering Financing Total $ $ 1,158,846 57,942 208,592 57 .942 i 1,483,322 1,132,565 113,257 203,862 135.908 1,585,592 October 30, 2002 Page 4 of7 Assessment Summary Street Assessment Curb and Gutter Overlay Water Main Sanitary Sewer Total $ 387,526 99,470 40,887 198,152 56.091 1,585,592 $ 369,032 84,260 21,980 175,717 o 1,483,322 I Assessment Rates Residential Street Commercial Street Commercial Overlay Residential Overlay New Curb and Gutter Replaced Curb and Gutter (60/40) 44.35 70.17 21.47 o 16.11 o 44.35 70.17 12.17 6.09 15.95 9.57 Bettendorf stated that while the project is not yet complete it is scheduled to bla completed this fall. The blacktop has been delayed due to the cold and wet October. Due to the latenl~s of the year, the restoration will be completed in Spring of 2003. At this time Bettendorf opened the floor for questions and comments from those present. Dick Taufen of'i'd Avenue NW questioned the designation of the truck route on 2nd Avenue NW and objected to paying for an assessment to repair the road. Taufen stated that 2nd Avenue NW became the designated truck route when some residents on East Minnesota Street objected to Minnesota Street being the truck route. Taufen requested that the truck route designation be returned to Minnesota Street. Hosch responded that the Council has discussed this request in the past and is aware of some concerns regarding the turning radius at the intersection of 2nd Avenue NW and Minnesota Street W. I Loso stated he would be supportive of removing the signs and not having a designated truck route. Hosch recommended that this matter be discussed at a future meeting. Jim Schwegel of'i'd Avenue NW requested the Council consider placing load restrictions on all City Streets and limit the access to 2nd Avenue NW. He stated that he too objects to the designated truck route on 2nd Avenue NW. Dick Taufen of 'i'd Avenue NW questioned why the residents are being assessed when the road will not be finished this year. Bettendorf responded that it is not unusual for a project to be completlad before the final assessment hearing. Many times the final wear course of bituminous is not laid unbl the spring, allowing the road to settle. Bettendorf further stated that if the City would wait until the project is completely finished before assessing the property owner, capitalized interest would need to be included when bonding so that the City could make the first bond payments. Capitalized interest would significanfiy increase the assessments charged to the affected property owners. City Attorney John Scherer stated that Minnesota Statues grants municipalities to assess projects when the cost of the improvement can reasonably be calculated. At this time lIhe City has the final cost for the project and is using their statutory authority to assess the cost back to the property owner. Ideally the City would prefer to assess a project that is complete but that is not possible in this case. Dick Taufen of 'i'd Avenue NW stated that when a job is bid a completion date is included along with a penalty provision if the timeline is not completed. Taufen stated that it is his understanding that the project has passed the required completion date and questioned if the contractor will be charged liquidated damages (penalty). Bettendorf stated that while it is true that the completion date has passed, he is reluctant to I recommend the Council charge liquidated damages. Liquidated damages are charged when a contractor is not performing, such as the County Road 121 Project. In that case the contractor was made aware during the project that they were not meeting the required timeline and would be charged damages if the project was not completed on time. In the case of the Interior Street Proj'ect the contractor has been I I I , , ¡ October 30, 2(J02 Page 5 þf7 ! ' 1 performing and the delay in completion is a result of weather. October has been considerably colder and wetter than normal causing a delay in the project. i Hosch stated that he is not opposed to charging a contractor liquidated damages when it is , warranted. Hosch concurred with Bettendorf that the delays in the Interior Street Project are a result of weather not performance. Therefore Hosch stated he could not support penalizing RL. Larson at this i time. Rassier stated that he believes the Contractor has worked to the best of their ability and should not be penalized for weather. ! 1 Nel Pfannenstein of 209 East Ash Street questioned what is meant by caPitalize~ interest. I Bettendorf responded that when the City bonds for improvements, the bonding is typically finalized before construction begins so that payments to the contractor can be made. To assure that the bond issue will cash flow the City must include a revenue source in the bonding documents. The revenue sources assure that the annual bond payments are made. The first payment for the 2002 Bond Issue is due in May of 2003. The revenue to pay the bond payments is partly through assessments. If the City does not have the assessment revenue for the first bond payment then the first payment must be i included in the bond issue. Recapturing the first payment is called capitalized interest. If the City would not assess the Street Project in 2003, the assessment revenue would not be received by the City until 2004. i -, -. '-~"-'-~--~"':C_'" ·~·'".~~-_~·';·~;_'''·.~v.o__:.,"._"""'.¡~O Joyce Stock of 220 Ash Street East questioned when the assessment must be paid. Weyrens stated that residents have the option of paying part, all or none of the assessment. f-ny portion of the assessment paid within 30 days of the date of adoption of the assessment will not be ¡ charged interest. All assessment balances outstanding on November 30, 2002 will be charged interest starting from October 30. Unpaid assessment balances will be payable over a 15 year period, at an I interest rate of 6%. I Tim Borresch of 12- 3" Avenue NWobjected to being assessed before the pJoject is complete. He, stated that he as a contractor cannot charge a customer until the project is finished and stated the City should operate the same. Borresch further stated that his property has suffered damage as a result of the project and does not feel he should pay the assessment until all the outstanding issues are resolved. Borresch requested the Council assess the project at this time but waive the interest and first payment until the project is completed. ' Scherer stated the State Statutes regarding public improvements is very rigid and once the City adopts an assessment roll the procedure is dictated by Minnesota Statute. Scherer stated it is his opinion that the Statute does not provide the City with the option of waiving interest or delaying payments for 6ne year. He further stated that the City has issued the debt for the improvement and will is responsible f6r making the payments in 2003. If the project is not assessed at this time, the City will have to find the funds to cover the first payment and charge the cost back to the affected property owners. Scherer stated that assessing the project at this time is the most economical for the affected property owners. Ehelrt stated that he understands the desire to not assess the project and this time and would support looking at alternatives to assessing the project including delaying interest for one year. Hosch stated that the interest for one year would be considerable and the City would have to pay for that , additional cost. Loso stated that the City is bound by levy limits and the budget for 2003 has already i been set. At this time the City cannot levy additional dollars to cover the interest cost. Weyrens stated that she did no have available the value of interest for one year but estimated it would be between $ I 50,000 and $ 60,000. The total assessments for the above stated project is approximately $ 645,000. ! . I Tom Brannan of 114 Ash Street West objected to being assessed for a project that is not complete. He agreed with those present that the project should not be assessed until 2003 at which time the project will be finished. I Tim Borreschof 12- 3" Avenue NWquestioned why all the roads are being lowered and stated that1his sprinkler system was damaged during the street construction. i Bettendorf stated that he is not aware that the roads have been lowered. Bettendorf stated that at this time only the curb has been installed. The road will be built up from the current height and the! asphalt will increase the level as well. As far as the sprinkler system, if the heads are located in the I ROW, the City is not responsible for replacement. The City has ,:an Ordinance prohibiting placement 'Of ,·:i,1.h·;:-..>"Ä.;.··."..-,;."""':;":;¡;~,-,." _"';"~_"h~\,~)'- October 30, 2002 Page 6 of7 objects in the ROW area. If the sprinkler heads were damaged as a result of the street improvement and are not located in the ROW a claim can be submitted to the general contractor. Jean Dehler of 33 Minnesota Street West questioned when interest will begin accruing on the proposed assessment and what happens to the assessments if they are finalized and there are funds remaining. Weyrens clarified that the interest will begin accruing the day the assessment roll is adopted. However, if residents pay the assessment within 30 days of adoption, interest is not charged. Scherer responded that if for some reason their would be additional revenue when the project is complete, Minnesota Statute has a provision whereby the City could amend the assessment roll. Mike Deutz objected to charging rental properties a commercial street rate. Deutz stated that the rental properties are a single family use and they should be charged the same street assessment as traditional families. Further, Deutz stated that as a rental property he already pays more in property taxes and objects to the proposed formula for assessing streets. Weyrens clarified that all properties where a commercial street was built was assessed using the property tax classification. All property that is taxed as homestead property, abutting a commercially built street was assessed a residential street rate. All property that is not taxed as homestead property, abutting a commercially built street was assessed at the commercial street rate. Hosch stated that it is his opinion that the calculation for street assessment was fair and equitable. Scherer stated that the City cannot treat similar classed property differently. Therefore, the City could not distinguish between rental property and commercial property as they are all taxed the same. The City is treating all like property classifications the same. I Roger Steichen objected to the street assessment classification. Steichen stated that he concurs with Duetz and rental property should not be charged higher than residential properties. Steichen questioned whether additional value is received by his property or what justification the CounCIl is using by charging rental properties more than residential properties. It was clarified that all homestead property was assessed a residentia:l rate and all non homestead property was assessed for a commercial street. Scherer reiterated that the City is treating all I like property classifications the same and are using the tax records for the determination of how the property is being assessed. Mike Deutz stated it is his opinion that the assessment role contains errors and residential property that is being used for commercial purposes is being assessed at the residential rate. Weyrens responded that the property tax records will be reviewed but the City does not assign those classifications. Scherer stated that if a property owner is conducting a business ou1 of their home and living at the same address it will probably have the tax classification of homestead. Again, the City is using the tax status as determined by the assessor. Mike Deutz questioned the assessment for the commercial property on Birch Street and stated it was his opinion that he would receive a credit for the concrete apron on the south side of Birch Street as it is only five years old. Bettendorf stated that concrete apron charges were not priced independently, rather they become part of the street cost. Further, Bettendorf stated that Deutz is not beling charged for the additional apron that is being poured on the north side of Birch Street which is considerably more concrete than that which was removed. Weyrens stated that she has received a written contention from Mike and Florence Loso of 26 West Birch Street. The letter identifies four areas of concern: 1. Water main - Loso contends that the water line was increased to 8" to a=mmodate future business if the area would redevelop. Response: Bettendorf stated that property owners were not charged for the 8" main. However, Bettendorf stated that the 8" main will provide better water circulation and fire protection for Loso. The industry is changing the residential water main to 8" rather that the current 6". Bettendorf stated that the new additions being developed in SI. Joseph are increasing the water main to 8". Bettendorf further I stated the majority of the cost of increasing the pipe is labor. Regardless Loso has been charged the same as all other residents, based on a 6" pipe. I I I I October 30, 2002 Page 7 of 7 , , , 2. Curb Service Replacement - Loso contends that he has received no benefit from the changing ¡of ~~~ I 1 Response: Bettendorf stated that all the service lines were removed during the construction process as the majority of the lines were old and copper piping. If the old service lines were left in during the construction and fitting would have to be adjusted to the old pipe creating an additional joint in the i pipe. Bettendorf stated that whenever a fitting is retrofitted there is the risk of having a connection that is not as secure causing future maintenance issues. Mike Loso stated that he has had a problem with his water line freezing over the past years and questioned if the new service line will not freeze. Bettendorf responded that he cannot promise that a line will not freeze, but he does not believe the water line i freezing should be a continuing issue. Mike Loso questioned if the City will be responsible for the water freezing if it continues to happen. Hosch stated that the City cannot promise that it will never freeze but for the first years he should not experience any problems. '"-'~~'-"Y·'.~~.'_'~"~ ·,·";···.","'·_·"è·~,-,-_,,,·,·, 3. Street Apportionment - Loso contends that his street sees an abnormal amount of truck and vehicular traffic as a result of the business across the street from his house. Therefore, Loso is requesting a reduction in the cost share. Response: Bettendorf stated that he is being assessed the same as all other residentiai properties in the affected area. 4. Use of State Aid Funds - Loso contends that the residents abutting a State Aid classified road, should see the benefit abutting such, using the aid received to reduce the assessment. · I Response: Bettendorf stated that the City has recently qualified for State Aid funding. As such the City had to designate which roads would be State Aid Roads. These roads are typically more I traveled roads. The City will receive annually an apportionment determined by the State of Minnesota, that will go into a construction fund. In addition to construction funds, the City will receive maintenance funds for minor repairs. The State Aid funds were used for the 2002 Street Improvement but were , allocated over the entire cost of the project as is typically done in municipalities. ¡ I There being no one further to comment, Ehlert made a motion to close the public hearing at 9:35 PM with the following issues outstanding: ' 1. Delay of interest 2. Truck Route Designation 3. Classification for determining road costs 4. Replacement of concrete Aprons - Mike Deutz 5. Water main cost - James Schwegel. Discussion: The Council agreed to review the outstanding issues at the November 7, 2002 City Council meeting and adopt the final assessment roll. ' The motion was seconded by Schneider and passed unanimously. Adiourn: Loso made a motion to adjourn at 9:45 PM; seconded by Rassier and passed éf:; ~ "~-"',,~~." " ~.u ...... .,.....,....'. I THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I I