Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 [09] Sep 21 I I I September 21,2005 Page 1 of 8 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in special session on Wednesday, September 21,2005 at 7:00 PM at the St. Joseph Community Fire Hall. Members Present: Mayor Richard Carlbom. Councilors AI Rassier, Dale Wick, Ross Rieke, Renee Symanietz. Administrator Judy Weyrens. Citv Representatives Present: City Engineers Joe Bettendorf and Tracy Ekola, City Attorney Tom Jovanovich. Others Present: Donna Blanchette, Kevin Blanchette, Ryan Hole, Leonard Walz, Betty Walz, Don Billadbeau, Ralph Schmitt, Ken Twit, Leo Sadlo, Dan Nierengarten, Jean Nierengarten, Bud Reber, Mike Nierengarten, Delbert Collett, Marge Reber, Dennis Stueve, Carol Dolence, Gary Vornbrock, Jeanette (Nettie) Pfannenstein, Irma Hoffmann, Linda Sniezek, Leah Klocker, S. Kara Hennes, Jason Prom, Camie Prom, Sy Prom, Pat Pearce, Mary Layton, Rachel Templin, Katie Johnson, Don Schneider, Roger Beuning, Judy Meemken, Alfred Eich, Bruce Gohman, Tim Magnuson, Roy Walz, Tim Borresch, Rosanne Eiynck, Cory Ehlert, Steve Schirber, Cale Johnson, Kathleen Herring, Alex Herring. 2006 Proposed Street Improvement: Mayor Carlbom stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider making of an improvement on 1st Avenue E from Baker Street E to County Road 75; 2nd Avenue E from Baker Street E to Ash Street E; 3rd Avenue E from Baker Street E to Ash Street E; Able Street E from 15t Avenue SE to 3rd Avenue SE; Alley north of Able Street E from College Avenue S to 3rd Avenue SE; Alley north of E Minnesota Street from College Avenue N to 3rd Avenue NE; Alley east of 1st Avenue E from Baker Street E to Ash Street E; Alley east of 2nd Avenue SE from Baker Street E to Able Street E; Alley west of 1st Avenue E from Alley north of Able Street to Ash Street E; Able Street E from 5th Avenue SE to 6th Avenue SE; 5th Avenue SE from E Minnesota Street to Able Street E; Forcemain on Able Street E from 6th Avenue SE to 5th Avenue SE pursuant to Minn. Stat. ~~ 429.011 to 429.111. The proposed improvement includes street, curb/gutter, and water/sewer replacement. The estimated cost of the improvement is $ 2,049,011.38. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvement will be heard at this meeting. Carlbom stated that the City Engineer will present the details of the proposed improvement and when he is finished the floor will be opened for questions and comments. Carlbom stated that persons wishing to speak should limit their comments to three minutes. After the comment portion of the hearing is finished the Council will discuss the proposed improvements. Weyrens stated that at the close of the hearing, one of the following actions will be considered: 1. Order the Improvement 2. Stop the project 3. Table the decision for further information At this time Mayor Carlbom turned the floor over the City Engineer, Joe Bettendorf. Bettendorf stated that the project discussed at this meeting is the last section of old street and utility lines that are in need of repair. The City over the years has adopted and reviewed a Capital Improvement Plan. The purpose of the plan was to identify and prioritize capital projects. This project has been delayed several times due to more immediate needs and lack of financing. The most recent delay was 2004. At this time the Council would like to finish the reconstruction areas so that when the City chlorinates the water, all the old pipes have been replaced. The City is required to chlorinate the water and has asked the State to delay enforcing the requirement until the City has replaced the old pipes. In 1996 when the City renovated the existing water filtration plant, chlorination was added as required by the State. However, residents experienced particles in the water and discoloration. Since that time the City replaced a large section of pipes and the final section is scheduled for 2006. Regardless of the improvement, the City will be required to chlorinate the water and that will begin sometime early 2006. The proposed improvement consists of reconstructing interior streets with curb, gutter, concrete aprons at alleys, restoration of boulevards, some tree removal and alleys construction/reconstruction. In addition, September 21,2005 Page 2 of 8 the water mains in the project area are over 50 years old and have served their useful life. The sewer lines are the clay style pipes and in televising the lines, some lines are in dire need of replacement. Unlike water lines, sewer lines can be lined if they are in need of repair. The lining is not inexpensive, however, excavation is not required to complete the repairs and the City does not assess a property owner for sewer lining. I Bettendorf presented the following project summary: PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT EXISING CONDITION CONSTRUCTION FUNDING Storm Sewer Age: 40+ Years - Replace catch basins and Design Life: 50 Years leads. - Replace main line pipe as needed. Sanitary Sewer Age: 40+ Years OPTION 1 OPTION 1 Design Life: 50 Years - Replace All Sewer: Mains, Clay Pipe is brittle manholes, services to property Assessed: $ 414,698 Gaskets are gone line. City: $ 276,465 Root Problems OPTION 2 OPTION 2 - Replace problem areas only: Install future liner where City: $ 279,539 needed; repairs service as needed. Water Main Age: 50+ Years Replace Mains, hydrants, Design Life: 50 Years valves and services to property I Cast Iron Pipe is brittle line. Old Gaskets Old Gate Valves Iron/Maganese Deposits Forcemain Recent Sewer Backups Relocate discharge point Bettendorf presented the following projected costs and proposed financing: CONSTRUCTION ITEMS ESTIMATED COST Street and Alleys Sanitary Sewer - Option 1 Water Main Storm Sewer $ 949,566 $ 500,843 $ 239,495 $ 119,658 Sub Total $ 1,809,562 PROJECTED FUNDING Assessment Revenue City Funds $ 1,484,022 $ 1,013,173 When projects area assessed the following policy is applied: Street, Curb, Gutter Interior Lot Corner Lot Alley Sanitary Sewer Water Front Footage 100% Short side; 50% Long Side Abutting Footage Unit Measure Unit Measure I I I I September 21, 2005 Page 3 of 8 Bettendorf stated that the City only assesses a portion of the costs to abutting property owners and the balance is paid through special revenues or tax levy. The cost split is as follows: New Curb and Gutter New Alley Pavement Reconstruction Alley 100% Assessed 100% Assessed 80% Assessed 20% City 100% City 60% Assessed 40% City Storm Sewer All Other items At this time Mayor Carlbom opened the floor for questions and comments and reminded those present to limit their comments to three minutes to allow all persons present an opportunity to speak. Carlbom also requested that all persons wishing to speak identify themselves and provide their address. Tim Borresch of 34 - 1st Avenue SE questioned the reimbursement for driveways if a property owner chooses to replace the entire driveway and if the reimbursement is the same for all property owners. Bettendorf responded that the reimbursement will vary by property and is based on how much of the driveway must be replaced. In some cases, especially where grade is involved, additional driveway must be removed. Therefore, the square footage reimbursement may vary. All property owners will be reimbursed through the same policy. That is, upon proof of payment the City will reimburse a property owner the amount that would have been assessed if the City had replaced the driveway. This reimbursement only applies if the property owner chooses to replace the entire driveway. Dennis Stueve of 111 East Able Street questioned if the proposed alley improvement will be constructed with enough weight for garbage trucks. Bettendorf responded that any improvement is built for travel by garbage trucks. Leo Sadlo of 109 - 1st Avenue SE questioned if the roads will be widened by 2 feet. Bettendorf responded that the proposal is to replace the road at the current width. Tracy Ekola stated that 1st Avenue SE has some variation in width (34' - 36') and if possible the road width will be 36'. Mike Nierengarten of 41 Ash Street East questioned why 1st Avenue NE is proposed for improvement when it was completed in 1992. He further questioned if the road is in need of repair if seal coating wouldn't be a cheaper solution. Bettendorf responded that in 1992 the City installed a new water main as part of the water tower construction. At that time only half of the road was excavated and the improvement consisting of replacing what was in place. The project did not include any assessments and the street was not reconstructed. With regard to seal coating, seal coating is maintenance improvement that is used on roads in good shape that are not in need of replacement. Dan Nierengarten of 110 - 1st Avenue SE questioned the need to improve the alley behind his house as the alley is a dead end alley and is not used. Bettendorf stated that he would review the alley and if it is a dead end alley that does not provide access it should not be improved. Adjacent property owners stated that the alley provides front access to one property, but it does not need to be improved for that purpose. Mike Nierengarten of 41 Ash Street East stated that he does not support the reconstruction of the alley adjacent to his property and requested the Council leave the alley gravel. Leo Sadlo of 109 - 1st Avenue SE questioned how the water and sewer assessment was calculated for the apartment building located adjacent to his property. Sadlo also stated that his front footage is listed incorrectly on the assessment worksheet as he only has 112 feet of frontage not 117 feet. Bettendorf responded that the apartment facility was assessed on a formula using number of bedrooms. The first four bedrooms consist of one unit and the next five through fifteen bedrooms constitute one unit for each five bedrooms. Based on the total number of bedrooms the apartment facility September 21,2005 Page 4 of 8 is being assessed for three units. The method used for this calculation is the same method used for the County Road 121 Improvements and Interior Street Improvements. I Kevin Blanchette of 113 East Minnesota Street questioned the rationale for improving the alleys and if it is a requirement. If the sewer lines need replacement in the alley, replace them but put the gravel back for the surface. Bettendorf responded that as a policy whenever the City plans a street improvement abutting alleys are considered. If they are not included as part of the project someone always questions the cost of improving them. Therefore, the improvements are calculated and if the Council chooses against the alley improvement they are removed. This same process was used for the 2002 Street Improvement Project and the residents did not want the alley's improved so they were removed. Donna Blanchette of 113 East Minnesota Street questioned if the residents will be asked to vote on whether or not to improve the alleys. Carlbom stated that the residents will not be asked to vote. Rather, the Council will make a decision based on the testimony provided at this hearing. Jeanette (Nettie) Pfannestein of 208 East Ash Street spoke in opposition to the alley improvements. Pfannenstein stated that they have one of the nicest alleys in the City. In fact they ask the City Maintenance Staff to not grade the alley. If the alley is improved with asphalt public safety becomes an issue as people will drive faster and use the alley as an alternative road. Mary Layton of 220 East MN Street questioned the need to repair 3rd Avenue SE if only a small section of pipe is bad. Layton stated that in her opinion the street and curb are in good shape and could last a number of years. She stated that she understands the City does not want to patch the streets. After Minnesota Street was reconstructed the City was forced to cut into the street causing a patch. So just because you want to replace the pipe and the street at the same time, that doesn't mean that you won't I have a patch in two or three years. She also stated that it is her opinion that the economy is unstable and with escalating gas and heating prices, residents will not be able to afford the improvement. Layton recommended the Council delay the project until the economy stabilizes. Bettendorf stated that while only a small section of pipe is being replaced the road was scheduled to be replaced. The City has not decided if the sewer lines will be replaced. As stated during the presentation the City can line the bad sections of pipe and not install new mains. The City does not want to incur the cost of reconstructing a street only to replace bad pipe in two or three years. Tim Borresch of 34 - 1st Avenue SE stated that three years ago he was involved in a street improvement project and the road was lowered as a result. Borresch questioned if the streets involved in the improvement area will be lowered. Bettendorf responded that the project has not been designed so he cannot answer that question. However, it is the intent to keep the road at the same level. If the Council moves forward with the improvement and orders the design, a number of workshops will be conducted providing residents an opportunity to meet one on one with the Engineer to see how the project will impact their property. These workshops will be conducted after the design is complete but before the Council accepts the design. Steve Schirberof 103 - 3rd Avenue SE stated that from what he has heard at this meeting everything is negotiable and questioned Bettendorf if his fees were negotiable as well. Bettendorf stated that the fees are based on the amount of work that is completed. If they can reduce some of the work they will and the fee will automatically be lowered. Alex Herring of 114 - 1st Avenue SE questioned the life expectancy of a road and utility lines and stated that there seems to be some discrepancy in the condition of the street. If the street, curb and gutter are in good shape then why not find an alternative for pipe replacement. Herring stated that he is familiar with I construction and questions why the improvements need to be completed, disrupting the lives of adjacent property owners. I I I September 21, 2005 Page 5 of 8 Bettendorf responded that the water line is in need of replacement and to do so the road must be removed. While alternatives are available for lining sewer pipes, the same alternative is not available for water. Bud Reber of 118 - ~d A venue SE spoke in opposition to paving the alleys. Reber stated that in his opinion alley pavement is a waste of taxpayer money. The alley adjacent to his property is very seldom used and pavement will create a safety issue. Reber also stated that it is his opinion that the curb in the project area is in good shape and does not need replacement. Carnie Prom of 115 East Able Street spoke in opposition to the alley pavement. Prom stated that she and her husband recently purchased their home and they like the gravel alley. In her opinion the gravel alley adds to the small town atmosphere. She further stated that they hope to have children soon and they would have concern if the alley were paved, as the alley would then become a road causing safety issues. Roy Walz of 110 - East Ash Street questioned why alley reconstruction is not calculated using the same method for street construction. His property abuts two alleys and if they were streets he would be afforded a 50% credit for the long side. Bettendorf stated that the proposed assessments were calculated using existing policies. The Council would have to change the policy to afford credit as questioned. Leonard Walz of 16 - 1st A venue SE stated that it is his opinion the street, curb and gutter are perfect and do not need replacement. Cory Ehlert of 102 - 1st Avenue SE requested the Council consider providing relief to the residents on 1s1 Avenue SE as daily 20 to 24 buses travel 1 51 Avenue SE. Ehlert stated that providin~ relief would be similar to that provided to the residents on 2nd Avenue NW. The residents abutting 2n Avenue NW were provided relief as 2nd Avenue NW carries a considerable amount of truck traffic. Kathleen Herring of 114 - 1st A venue SE stated that she has purchased her home within the past six months and this is the first time she has been informed of a proposed improvement. She stated that had she been informed the improvement could have been considered with the purchase. The proposed assessment will cause her a hardship. Herring also questioned what recourse residents have if they object to the project and if the City will replace trees and shrubs that are removed. Bettendorf responded that the hearing tonight is one of two required hearings. The Council has not approved the project at this time. That decision will be made some time after the public hearing has concluded. Bettendorf further stated that the City has considered the making of the improvement before them in previous years. The project was delayed for the CR 121 Improvement in 2002 and again in 2004. The City has prepared a five year capital improvement plan and that plan is reviewed annually. The proposed improvement being discussed at this time is the last section of the City that needs utility line replacement. With regard to the recourse of the residents, City Attorney Tom Jovanovich stated that the Council will make a decision as to whether or not to move forward with the project. It is very seldom that 100% of the affected property owners support an improvement. The City Council must make a decision as to what is best for the City. Residents have a right of appeal when the assessment hearing is conducted and that right of appeal is limited to the increase in market value versus the assessment. Bettendorf stated that it is the policy of the City to replace trees and shrubs that are not located within the ROW, any obstruction in the ROW will not be replaced. Mayor Carlbom clarified that the City is following the guidelines as set forth in Minnesota Statutes. The process allows for public input during the decision making process. The City has worked with a capital improvement plan since 1987 updating and reviewing the plan each year. It is important for the City to follow the Capital Improvement Plan so that improvements are done timely and do not become a burden to the City. September 21, 2005 Page 6 of 8 Jean Nierengarten of 110 - 1st Avenue SE requested the Council only do the repairs that are absolutely necessary. Mary Layton of 220 East Minnesota Street stated that she is still making payments on the East Minnesota Street Improvement and now she is being asked to pay another assessment. She also stated that in her opinion the East Minnesota Street Project did not meet her expectations. During the restoration she lost some of her black dirt and the boulevard is uneven and hard to maintain. Bettendorf agreed that the contractor that completed the restoration did not perform. In fact, the contractor left the project before it was completed and a second contractor was hired who encountered problems as well. The City makes every effort to assure that contractors perform and some situations are out of the City control. Marge Reber of 102 - 2nd A venue SE stated that she is opposed to the alley improvement. AI Eich of 24 - 1st Avenue SE questioned who pays for the maintenance of the lift station that is needed for the sewer. Bettendorf stated that the City is responsible for maintaining the lift station and those charges are not assessed. Tim Magnuson of 112 East Minnesota Street questioned if an alley is currently paved and the sewer line needs to be replaced can the alley be converted to a gravel alley. Bettendorf responded that the City Council would make that decision. Delbert Collett of 116 - 1st Avenue SE questioned if the streets will be widened. Bettendorf responded that the proposed improvement does not include changing road widths. It is the intent to replace the existing road as it is currently established. First Avenue SE has width variation and it may change slightly. Bruce Gohman of 201 East Minnesota Street stated it is his understanding that there is no urgency to complete the proposed project and based on the input from this meeting he requested the Council consider waiting 2 or 3 years. Jeanette (Nettie) Pfannenstein of 208 Ash Street East questioned if residents selling their homes are required to pay the assessment in full at the time of closing or if they are required to disclose the pending assessment. Weyrens stated that the City is required to list an improvement as pending at the time the Council orders the public hearing. In the past the City Office has received calls whether a certain area will be improved and if we are aware of an upcoming project the office will provide that information. With regard to payment of the assessment, Rassier stated that typically the assessments are negotiated during the sale of the home. Ken Twit of 213 East Able Street stated that it appears as though those present at this meeting object to the alley pavement and the Council should consider removing them from the project. Twit also clarified that when he was on the Council in 1996 the Council had discussed improving the area being discussed and it was put off for a future time. The subject of improving the streets is not a new topic, rather the Council prioritized the needs and it is now time to finish the remaining street section. Twitalso stated that providing notice before a project is considered pending can be an impediment as well as an advantage. It depends if you are selling or buying. If you intend to sell your home and the project is not considered pending, you are not obligated to provide that information. As in the case before the Council tonight, if the City would have listed the project as pending, property owners for seven or eight years would have been disclosing the information without knowing when or if the project will begin. Ross Rieke requested clarification from Tim Magnuson regarding the alley improvement. Rieke questioned if Magnuson currently abuts a paved alley and is willing to down grade to grave. I I I I I I September 21, 2005 Page 7 of 8 Magnuson stated that is correct. The paving of the alley is not worth the additional assessment to him and he concurred with those present that a newly paved alley encourages traffic. Other residents present also stated that they would be willing to convert their alley to gravel as well. Roger Buening of 120 East Minnesota Street questioned if some alleys are improved and others are not how will the widths match. Conceivably you could drive from an 8' to 14' to 8'. Buening questioned if the City is not concern about the varied widths. Bettendorf responded that the Council has not determined if the alleys will be paved and they remain in their current condition. Gladys Schneider of 118 - 3d A venue SE questioned if the City really needs to complete the improvement proposed as the City has other needs such as a water tower. She stated that she has been assessed numerous times and have always complied but it is becoming more difficult. She empathized with those present and stated that everyone should contribute towards the improvements. Someone present questioned if the City would consider changing the cost sharing formula from 40% City participation to a larger contribution. Rassier stated that the City has been consistent charging all residents the same portion. When the last section of the improvement is completed (that being presented at this meeting) is finished the City can look at the policy. However, Rassier stated it is his opinion that the revised formula will probably result in the City paying less than 40%. Katie Johnson of 28 - 3rd Avenue SE requested the Council find alternative methods of informing residents of happenings in the City. Linda Sniezek of 212 East MN Street spoke in opposition to the alley pavement. Sniezek stated in her opinion the alley adjacent to her property is in good condition and does not need improvement. Cory Ehlert of 102 - 1st Avenue SE requested the Council reconsider the improvement and find ways to reduce the assessments to ease the burden on the affected residents. Wick stated that the proposed improvement does include alternatives. Alternatives include removal of the alley improvements, converting blacktopped alley's to gravel and lining sewer lines that are in need of repair. Gary Vornbrock of 114 East Minnesota Street questioned if the City has researched alternatives for paying for the improvements. Vornbrock questioned why improvements are not paid by all the residents. Bettendorf responded that the City has been assessing residents for street improvements and have discussed alternative methods. However, there is no easy answer. Charging a monthly fee would not generate enough resources to complete a project, let along ongoing projects. At this time Weyrens presented the Council with the following written comments: ~ Mark Dunnigan of 35 - 2nd Avenue SE requested that the Council not order the improvement based on the estimated cost of the project. ~ John Anderson of 116 Ash Street East requested the Council exclude alley improvements from the proposed project. ~ Leon & Joy Birr of 108 Ash Street East requested the Council not order the improvement, in particular the alley improvement. ~ Quality Care Services Inc of 3rd Avenue SE informed the Council that they provide care for persons with disabilities and if the project moves forward they have special needs that will need to be resolved. Mayor Carlbom closed the public comment portion of the public hearing at 9:00 PM Wick made a motion to continue discussing the proposed Improvement at the next regular scheduled Council meeting, October 6, 2005. In addition, the Council will make a decision on September 21, 2005 Page 8 of 8 whether or not to proceed on October 20, 2005 at the regular Council meeting. The motion was I seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. Discussion: The Council confirmed that the public portion of the hearing has been closed and the comments will be limited to Council discussion. Persons wishing to speak on the matter must do so at the public comments to the agenda. Recess: Wick made a motion to recess for 10 minutes; seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. Pendinq Litiqation: Rieke made a motion stating that the meeting is being closed pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 130.05. This meeting is permitted to be closed because the Council will be discussing active litigation strategies with the City Attorney concerning a specific case. There is need for absolute confidentiality in these discussions. The Council has determined that, for the purposes of this closed meeting, the City's interest in preserving attorney-client privilege outweighs the purpose of the Open Meeting Law. The motion was seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously. Wick made a motion to open the meeting at 9:45 PM; seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously. Adiourn: Rassier made a motion to adjourn at 9:45 PM; seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously by those present. ~~~ J d Weyrens inistrator I I