Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.04.06 Council Minutes COUNCIL MINUTES PRE-MEETING DECEMBER 4, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Acting Mayor Fogarty at 6:30 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson Soderberg Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant 2. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by McKnight, second by Wilson to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS 4. COUNCIL REVIEW OF AGENDA Councilmember McKnight asked about the HPC consultant's contract and how the cost compares to 2006. Staff explained the $4,000 retainer is the same as 2006. The City pays the retainer up front. The hourly rate went from $50 to $65. Councilmember McKnight noted that either party may terminate the agreement with 30 days written notice, but yet we have paid the retainer up front. He asked if there was any provision for a refund of the retainer. It was agreed to pay the retainer monthly and add the provision regarding a refund. The contract will be brought back to the December 18, 2006 Council Meeting. Councilmember Pritzlaffhad a question regarding the November 27,2006 Council Workshop minutes. Regarding the easement acquisition contract for Flagstaff Avenue, he asked why the City is doing so much on the Flagstaffproject since it is a school project. This was to make sure the utilities are up to City standards. Staff explained the easement acquisitions are part of the construction project. The Settlement Agreement also specified the City takes the lead on the Flagstaff Avenue construction including any right-of-way acquisition, up to and including condemnation proceedings. Councilmember Wilson asked if the $66,980 is for all easement acquisitions. Staff explained that is for the consultant to do the work to acquire the easements. It does not include the payments to any of the property owners. City Attorney Jamnik noted this is a City project. It is City-designed, City-controlled, and done with City contractors. The Council Minutes (Pre-Meeting) December 4, 2006 Page 2 school is paying for it pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. It is a City project from design to completion. Councilmember Fogarty proposed items 11a), b), and c) be moved to the consent agenda. 5. STAFF COMMENTS a) Farmington Ridge Plan City Planner Smick provided Council with the sketch plan for Farmington Ridge. The development consists of 13 lots north of Bible Baptist Church. Councilmember Pritzlaffhad a concern with access onto Akin Road. Councilmember McKnight had the same concern with the Traffic Engineer saying the situation is not ideal. If it is not ideal, why are we allowing it? Councilmember Wilson was concerned with transportation and the loss of trees. He liked the lot size. Councilmember Fogarty was also concerned with the loss of trees and the size ofthose trees. 6. ADJOURN MOTION by McKnight, second by Pritzlaffto adjourn at 6:43 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~/Y7~ (.:;/ . Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR DECEMBER 4, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Acting Mayor Fogarty at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Acting Mayor Fogarty led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson Soderberg Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Allen Wachter, Pat Hansen, Jay Clinkscales, Dick Hansen, Jackie Dooley, Brad Johnson, Oran Evans, Linda & Dan Williams, Bob McGregor, Dave Sender, David Marsh, Loren & Leann Schulz, Earl Teporten, Ed Samuelson, Bob Reuter, Marcea Vetscher, Glenn & Kim Friederich, Kate Ekness 4. APPROVE AGENDA Councilmember McKnight pulled item 7b) Approve HPC Consultant Contract for consideration at the December 18, 2006 Council meeting. Councilmember Fogarty replaced the memo for 11a) Cataract Relief Association Pension Request with a memo received from City Administrator Herlofsky. She also proposed moving items 11a), b), and c) to the Consent Agenda. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Ms. Kate Ekness, 20665 Dallas Avenue, addressed her comments to the City Attorney. She stated on July 27,2006 Jackie Devney was killed on Pilot Knob Road by a driver who fell asleep and the car left the road. It has been four months and Ms. Ekness wanted to know ifthere was more going on. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Wilson, second by McKnight to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (11/20/06 Regular) (11/27/06 Special) Council Minutes (Regular) December 4, 2006 Page 2 b) Pulled Approving HPC Consultant Contract until December 18, 2006 c) Accepted Resignation Parks and Recreation Commission - Administration d) Approved Easement Acquisition Contract - Flagstaff Avenue Project- Engineering e) Received Information City Administrator Evaluation Summary - City Attorney f) Approved Bills g) Approved Cataract Relief Association Pension Request - Fire Department Councilmember Pritzlaff noted the pension benefit will increase by $400 to $3,750 and the City contribution will be $65,000 for 2007. He noted they had a four-year plan from the City Administrator and the Fire Department was also asked to develop a four-year plan. He would rather have seen a longer-range plan. However, he would gladly approve this and appreciated their service. h) Approved Change Order No. 1 Spruce Street - Engineering i) Approved Mill and Overlay Project Update - Engineering APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Truth-in- Taxation Hearing - Finance Finance Director Roland presented the 2007 budget highlights. Councilmember Wilson asked about the other category in revenues that shows a 237% increase. Finance Director Roland explained this is a capital outlay item which is a new siren to be constructed on the border of Farmington and Empire. The total cost is included in the expenditures which is $25,000. Halfis $12,500 which increases the amount shown for the other revenue coming from the township contributing to half the cost. Councilmember Wilson noted in expenditures there has been a staffing change in Community Development, so it is possible that there could be money that may not be expended. Finance Director Roland agreed. The money left would go into the fund balance. Councilmember Wilson asked if for every homeowner if the value of their home did not change, would the taxes be the same or decrease. Staff replied the City's portion would decrease. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted these are proposed numbers and Council has given a direction as to what number should be proposed for building permits. He asked what significant change that would have. Finance Director Roland replied if Council were to change any numbers on the revenue side, staff would have to make corresponding cuts to the expenditures to have a balanced budget. As the budget needs to be adopted by December 25,2006 we would need to revisit the numbers and change the budget document before December 18, 2006. Mr. David Marsh, 204 1 st Street, asked where staff came up with the factual information of houses increasing 6% last year. He is a small contractor and would like to know where his house increased 6%. He has taken his life savings to put it into his business and he did not gain 6% on his property value. We are paying an enormous amount. His taxes have increased in five years a huge Council Minutes (Regular) December 4, 2006 Page 3 amount, not only because ofthe City but also the school board. If we have increased the tax base by 23%, he thought his property taxes for the City should be reduced by that same percentage because most people are not getting 23 % increases in their pay raises on an annual basis. We have more taxation base, but we are also taking a bigger hit based on other parts of where our tax dollars are going. Would it not be fiscally responsible to take a hard look at that number and say our citizens are already getting a huge increase from the school? He does not agree that taxes will be dropped dollar for dollar on a 6% increase based on what was presented. Mr. Patrick Hansen, 5037 Upper 182nd Street, stated the taxes are getting out of hand. The last three years it was 28%, 22%, 19%. His house value has dropped 6% and when the new Riverbend addition comes in the value will drop more because he will have a lot of traffic going past his house. There are small lots and small garages and we cannot park on the streets in the winter. He has three vehicles which he has to have. There is not room in the garage for one car. His son has to park in the street or on the grass. The taxes keep going out of hand. It is time to look at what we need, not what we want. His paychecks have gone up 1 %,0%, 1 %,2% in the last four years. He does not get 9%, 19% or 28%. Ifhe did, he would not be here complaining. This has gone on long enough. We have to look at what we need, not what we want. Ms. Linda Williams, 5937 188th Street W, asked how the City figures the taxes. She has looked on the internet at homes for sale and some have more finished area than she does, and her taxes are higher than theirs. They were built the same year or newer, yet last year her taxes when up 18.9%, this year 7.4%. The value of her home was increased by $21,000. Homes are hard to sell and she does not plan on selling her home and does not plan on finishing her basement. She asked how the City can justify $21,000 when homes are not selling. Councilmember Fogarty noted the City does not set the value of the home, the County does. Ms. Williams stated still looking at the other homes for sale and seeing the square footage, her taxes are higher. She asked why that is. Finance Director Roland explained the County determines the assessed value on properties at the first of the year. Every year a property owner receives a card in January. The card will show the value of the home for 2008. The card gives options for meetings for residents to attend ifthey do not agreed with the value. Mr. Earl Teporten, 521 Oak Street, asked ifthere was information on the 800 mghz system. There is a 20% increase in the police and fire and asked how much is going to that system or how much it will increase police and fire protection. One of the biggest responsibilities a City has is to provide police and fire protection to its residents. There are times when he has watched fire engines stopped at the tracks while a building is burning. There is no fIre presence this side of the tracks. Finance Director Roland stated the total budgets for police and fire for 2007 are $3.7 million. The increase to dispatch services, which is what the DCC will cover, is $158,000. The City has been paying Lakeville for the last Council Minutes (Regular) December 4, 2006 Page 4 ten years for them to dispatch the police and fire. The City pays them $122,000 per year. Add $158,000 to $122,000 and come up with over $300,000 we are paying to the DCC for dispatch services in 2007. The 800 mghz allows police and fire agencies to speak to each other over a single wave length. In the long run this will improve police and fire coverage throughout the County. There are no additional police officers in 2007. The police department is at their staffing level they agreed to for a certain population. The second fire station has been built and when 195th Street goes through, there will be a way for the fire trucks to cross the tracks without being stopped. The DCC cost is pro-rated between cities based on several factors. There will be significant capital outlay required for 2007 for radios for police and fire which amounts to $340,000, hopefully through a grant. Mr. Kenneth Carlson, 3050 220th Street, stated his retirement pay has only gone up 3% per year yet his taxes have gone up $200 in one year. He feels there should be a senior citizens discount. Mr. Brad Hauge, pays taxes at 314 and 300 Oak Street, stated he bought buildings in town three and seven years ago and his taxes have gone up a tremendous amount, close to 100%. In addition he has an easement that has doubled his taxes on the two buildings. Instead of paying $2,000 a year he is paying $4,000 on one ofthe buildings. During this time he has not been able to keep the buildings rented. He has not been able to pass on those assessments on both buildings or the increase in taxes, $500-$600 per year. A new house may go up in value, an old building does not. He is currently buying buildings in other towns and he has seen comparable buildings. They are hard to rent here. His rent has not gone up in seven years, but his taxes and assessments have gone up. He is now in the red in his buildings. The second question is he works for a large company of 6500 employees. They have not given out a lot of raises in the last four or five years even though things were booming. The average raise is 2.5%-3%. He asked what is the percent of increases that are given to City employees and managers. Finance Director Roland replied the City has contracts with two unions, three divisions. The police union has a three year contract which is settled at 2.75% for all three years. The AFSCME contract which is clerical, technical employees and public works employees was 2.75%. The increases to health insurance were partially offset by increases to the contribution to health insurance, but not fully. Mr. Patrick Hanson asked if each Councilmember could review the budget and bring it down. Councilmember Wilson noted there was a workshop and he did not feel they made as deep a cut as they could have in the building permit number. We put in a number of275, but does not feel the number will be at that point. Before the next meeting, he asked if staff could make phone calls to the builders to determine what they will be doing for 2007. He was still concerned with the 275. Council Minutes (Regular) December 4, 2006 Page 5 Councilmember McKnight stated he had a similar concern with the building permit number. He said it in August and October and will say it again in December; that number is too high. We will have the school district revenue for the building fees, but that is just pushing off the hard decision for another year. He would like to see it bitten off in two years. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated these are proposed numbers and he would also like to look at the building permits and see if the number can be decreased and where that difference will be in the budget. Councilmember Wilson noted we have an $85,000 reduction that we have not expended yet in the Community Development area. We do not know what the goals will be for replacing that position, but that could be one area to be looked at as a delay in hiring. Ifwe are at 175 permits by July, then things will be moving better than expected. That will be one source of revenue to cover losses. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Adopt Resolution - Heritage Landmark Designations - 500 Spruce Street and 520 Oak Street - Administration In 2005 Council approved the application process for a Certified Local Government Grant so the Heritage Preservation Commission could begin a designation project. The project was to designate six residential properties as Heritage Landmarks. The first two properties are the T.C. Davis House at 520 Oak Street and the Duff-Betzold House at 500 Spruce Street. The HPC has determined these properties meet the requirements for designation as Farmington Heritage Landmarks. Councilmember Wilson appreciated the work of the HPC and the property owners. Councilmember McKnight asked what impact the classification has on the neighbors as far as zoning, etc. Administrative Services Director Shadick replied it is an overlay zoning and the properties will be noted on the zoning map as heritage landmarks. HPC Consultant Robert Vogel, stated there are no direct effects in terms of regulation. It does not affect what a neighbor can do with their property. The effects are indirect and beneficial. Some neighbors will tend to invest more in their property. The zoning regulations do not affect adjacent properties any more than normal zoning regulations. It does not exempt the landmarks and it does not burden the neighbors. Mr. Earl Teporten, 521 Oak Street, stated Mr. Vogel made a statement he did not understand. He was a former member ofthe Heritage Preservation Commission and one of the advantages to having a house designated was that homes immediately near that home, if they were to be demolished, the house to be constructed would have to be in a similar style to compliment the landmark home. He lives across from the T.C. Davis House and there is an adjacent property that is non-conforming. He has been concerned that some day that property will be Council Minutes (Regular) December 4, 2006 Page 6 demolished and what will go in there is of grave concern to him. Mr. Vogel replied there are two separate issues. One is the concept of neighborhood conservation which the Mayor has directed the HPC to develop a conceptual approach to doing that. That has not yet come to Council. That would create neighborhood scale landmark districts where the City would regulate in terms of the architecture for replacement buildings and for public structures located in these areas. What Mr. Teporten is talking about is a concept used in the downtown area in that when a new building on a vacant lot or a teardown and replacement structure, when the City is involved in the decision, the City needs to consider what it will allow to be built on the vacant lot or to replace the existing building, so it does not have a negative effect on one ofthe landmark properties that may be adjacent to it. This has only been applied in the downtown when it would devalue everything around it. With residential properties, the only time anything like that would come into play is if the City became involved in tearing down existing homes to put up a fire station for example. In order to follow its own policy, the City would have to be involved in the design with a building appropriate to a neighborhood with landmark properties. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated a year ago they were talking about if there is a house with this designation that neighbors with a deck for example that is torn down, they cannot put up a maintenance free deck. Mr. Vogel explained that is the discussion that lead to the Mayor's direction to come up with a neighborhood level preservation district. The City Planners are looking at this as an ordinance and how it would be implemented on a day-to-day basis. Under the existing ordinances and code there are no restrictions on adjacent property owners as far as what they can do with their buildings. There are restrictions with what the City can do in being a partner in redevelopment properties. MOTION by Wilson, second by Pritzlaffto close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by McKnight, second by Pritzlaff adopting RESOLUTION R131-06 designating the T.C. Davis House at 520 Oak Street and the Duff-Betzold House at 500 Spruce Street as Farmington Heritage Landmarks. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Elm Street Reconstruction Project - Engineering The proposed improvements for this project include the reconstruction of Elm Street and adjacent City streets, replacement of sanitary sewer and water main, and the addition of a storm drainage system. A neighborhood meeting was held on November 30, 2006 to convey assessment information to receive comments on the project. Elm Street is a former state highway and has been turned over to the County. It is now eligible for state turnback funds. The road improvements and a portion ofthe storm sewer improvements will be largely funded by the state turnback funds. The City will be responsible for funding the sanitary sewer, water mains, storm sewer improvements on the local side streets and the utilities in Elm Street and the local side streets themselves. Streetscapes and other improvements would be funded by the City. The County participates in the costs Council Minutes (Regular) December 4, 2006 Page 7 for aesthetics improvements only in an amount up to 1.5% of the construction cost of the street costs. The total project cost is estimated to be $6,074,000. The City's portion of the total estimated costs is $3,353,500. The assessment policy indicates that the City funds 65% of reconstruction costs and assesses 35% of the project costs to benefiting properties. 35% of the City's roadway, lateral storm sewer costs for the proj ect costs would be assessed on an area wide basis. The remaining 65% of these costs would be funded by the City. Water main lateral and sanitary sewer lateral costs would be assessed to those properties that are connected to those services on this project. It is proposed that the assessments for the water main and sanitary sewer be capped by the amount assessed for the Main Street project, specifically $1,500 for sanitary sewer and $1,500 for water main along Elm Street. The City cannot assess a property more than the benefit the property receives from the improvements. Up to $750 per residential unit in benefits could be supported by the properties. The commercial properties would be converted to residential equivalent units. The proposed estimated area wide assessment per REU is $486 for the roadway, streetlights and storm drainage. If the streetscape improvements are selected to be included in the proj ect and if the Council elects to assess those costs as well, the streetscape cost would increase the assessments by $117 to $603 per REU. The majority of residents at the neighborhood meeting were in favor of the project. Some of the concerns included Main Street residents being assessed again. The most significant comments were from business owners who were concerned about how the project will affect their businesses and being assessed while they would receive a negative financial impact during the project. The majority of the people were in favor of the streetscape part of the project, however the willingness to pay the extra assessment was mixed. Councilmember Pritzlaffnoted they had discussed doing the project in two phases. City Engineer Mann replied further along in the design they will be looking at phasing the project and traffic routes to allow people to get downtown. Another neighborhood meeting will be held in the future. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated another concern brought to him was letting the contractor work longer days to speed up the length of time the project takes. City Engineer Mann stated the City does not have an ordinance that specifies the working hours on a project. The working hours are kept consistent with hours in private development projects. Hours are 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. weekdays, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. on Saturdays, and no work on Sundays without approval. It is possible to open that specification on any project the City does. Councilmember Pritzlaffwould like to have the hours adjusted. Councilmember Wilson noted the project cost of $6.074 million is contingent on the bids received. The project will be bid next spring by the County. The County will be taking the lead on the project because ofthe turnback funds. They will also be designing the street work. The City will design the storm sewer, water main and sanitary sewer. Councilmember Wilson asked what if the City is notified that the lowest bid is $1 million more. Would the assessments be closer Council Minutes (Regular) December 4, 2006 Page 8 to $750? City Engineer Mann replied depending on where the costs come in, if they are in the street area which are paid for by turnback funds, then it becomes a state and county decision on how to move forward. The breakdown of costs is significant as far as the assessments. Depending on where the costs are it could bring it closer to $750. Councilmember Wilson asked why a different individual is identified as the City Engineer. City Engineer Mann replied the engineer of record who will be signing the plans is the engineer that is put in the resolution. There are not that many projects where City Engineer Mann is part of the resolution, because there is another engineer who is doing the design and who will be signing the plan. Councilmember McKnight asked staff to verify the area wide assessment does not cross into the Ash Street area wide assessment area. City Engineer Mann confirmed that is correct. Councilmember McKnight had three business owners contact him emphasizing they would like the project phased to help access to their businesses and asked City Engineer Mann to be an advocate for them when working with the County. He asked what other type of assistance the City will provide to help the businesses in terms of traffic routes. City Engineer Mann replied they will look at signage for the detours and make sure it will help people get to where they want to go. Staff has been talking about how to communicate to residents what will be going on in the downtown area. Staff is putting together a communication plan so there is an opportunity for every homeowner in the City to be aware of what is happening with the project and the best way to get downtown. Councilmember McKnight asked if the concrete in the streetscape area will be regular concrete, stamped concrete, or pavers. City Engineer Mann replied the proposal for the streetscape is to match the materials from the existing downtown area, the pavers and the concrete, and use the same set of materials. The patterns will not be the same as there are different parameters. A resident was concerned they are not as high a quality and would chip easier. Councilmember Fogarty asked about the borders ofthe streetscape area. City Engineer Mann replied the streetscape would happen between 4t Street and the railroad tracks. Staff is looking at decorative lighting all up and down Elm Street. If there are areas where a tree is dead or needs to be removed, staff will be looking at the trees all up and down the roadway as necessary. Mr. Brad Hauge, owns properties at 314 and 300 Oak Street, stated there was an assessment on 3rd Street about five years ago. When they tore up 3rd Street, they replaced the sewers, storm sewer and sidewalks. The assessment was to just the buildings downtown. He currently has assessments almost the same amount as his taxes on his buildings, about $3,200 per year for the building on the corner and a little less on the old theater. He noted the properties on Main Street were capped and some others. The downtown businesses were not capped. He has lO- Il years left to pay on the sidewalks. He heard the commercial buildings will be considered as residential and will be charged a residential amount. City Engineer Mann explained a typical lot in the City is 10,000 sq. ft. So for a commercial Council Minutes (Regular) December 4, 2006 Page 9 property, the area ofthat property will be divided by 10,000 and equate it to a residential equivalent unit. If the property is less than 10,000 or slightly more, it would be one REU. If the commercial property is 20,000 sq. ft., it would be two REU's. Mr. Hauge stated that did not happen previously. The fairness ofthe projects are different. The people downtown are treated differently and we are still paying for that treatment. Recently they were told they will be assessed again, but most businesses have 10-11 years left to pay on a very large assessment. Now they will get another one. He is having a hard time renting the buildings and has not been able to pass on the last assessment or the increase in taxes. There are a lot of empty buildings downtown. He requested the downtown businesses not be assessed, the ones that already have the $30,000 bills, and restructure the old assessment and spread it out also, or cap the amount. Downtown is struggling. We have lost businesses. He does not want to charge more, but he would rather have someone with a profitable business pay him what they can so he can make his tax payments. He spent tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade the two buildings with no return. Each time he got a permit, the county came to raise his taxes. He asked Council to do what they could for the businesses that have already been charged. Mr. Bill Vetscher, 309 Walnut Street, stated several years ago they did Walnut Street and it was to become an arterial so they paid quite a bit and it never became an arterial. This summer they paid for street maintenance. Then he got another assessment for 3rd Street, now there will be an assessment for Elm Street. He did not know what the basis is for the assessment area. If it is just the downtown, the assessment he will get for Elm Street is four times the amount for 3rd Street. He understood they were being assessed because it is an arterial street. The general public uses Elm Street. Weare passing a cost onto a small area. With the increase in property taxes, and the constant assessments for street repairs and upgrades, he asked Council to look for a more humane way to price them out of their homes. Mr. Earl Teporten, 521 Oak Street, asked how they do the assessments. Main Street was just assessed. Oak Street will be assessed for what is done on Elm Street. He asked how the assessment border is determined. City Engineer Mann replied the policy for arterial roadways started with the Pilot Knob Road project in 1999. Everyone Y2 mile either side of Pilot Knob got an area wide assessment and all residential equivalent units received the same assessment. The Ash Street project went from the alley south of Walnut down to the southerly boundary of the City. The Elm Street project is from the alley south of Walnut to the north to the river. Akin Road had an area either side of Akin Road as well as the 195th Street project. Mr. Teporten asked how the distances were determined. City Engineer Mann stated there are arterial roads that go through the City and everyone within the City will be within the area wide assessment of one ofthose. Mr. Teporten stated Ash Street was a classic example of missing a target for completion dates. A lot of the residents liked not having the road completed, because there was no traffic. Elm Street will be different. People will lose their Council Minutes (Regular) December 4, 2006 Page 10 businesses if the project is not completed on time or before. Is there any way to build in penalties in the contract to make sure they complete the project on time? City Engineer Mann replied there are ways to include penalties, but they can only address when the contractor is not performing. The penalties cannot address things that are outside the contractor's control such as weather, etc. Staffwill do everything possible to make sure the project is set up in a way to meet the deadlines. Councilmember McKnight stated the business owners have been very vocal about those same issues. They are being very clear with their concerns with staff and Council also. Mr. Teporten expressed concern about the access for EconoFoods and those businesses as there is no street. Ms. Jackie Dooley, 313 Walnut Street, stated in 1990 Walnut Street was done. At that time she was told to thank her lucky stars it was done now because this will be one of the main thoroughfares into town. They installed a 6 ft. storm sewer pipe. She asked why their neighborhood was having such a large storm sewer and changed the water flow. She was told she would be assessed for the 1990 project, but be thankful she would not have to be assessed for the Elm Street project. Ash Street and Elm Street were discussed 20 years ago. She was surprised to get the assessment because she did not think she would be assessed because ofthe Walnut Street project in 1990. Walnut was supposed to be like Ash or Elm Streets and the project was never completed. Mr. Dan Mingo, 24 Spruce Street, stated he is being assessed $603 next year for this project. In 2001-2002 tax period his taxes were $1800 a year. Next year his taxes will be $2900. That is $1100 in four years. Next year the taxes increased out of pocket, $21 a month. With the $603 that is a $75/month increase. Not even talking about the $603 worth of pain it will cause him with all the traffic going by, he asked someone at the neighborhood meeting what this project will do for him. He was told his property would increase by $500. He is paying $603 to make sure his property taxes go up by $500 the next year. There will be work done on Spruce Street and asked how the assessment process will work for that. When he moved in 23 years ago, he understood Spruce Street would be an arterial road to TH3. He asked if that is still part ofthe process. City Engineer Mann replied the City's thoroughfare plan does show Spruce Street being open at TH3 sometime in the future. As far as an improvement project on Spruce Street, that is the part in conjunction with the City Hall project. It would be the block between 3rd and 2nd Streets. That project will not be done next year. Mr. Mingo asked if the assessment process would be the same for Spruce Street. City Engineer Mann replied it would not, because for area wide assessments, the policy states each resident would be responsible for one area wide assessment. Mr. David Marsh, 204 1 st Street, stated he used to have a nice quiet cul-de-sac. When the hardware store was built, the cul-de-sac was opened which created more cars. Then the City built a liquor store 1,000 ft. from his house. Imagine Council Minutes (Regular) December 4, 2006 Page 11 living on this street during the construction. He is a small contractor and wanted to improve his house and make it a nice big classic downtown home. Through the City's planning he was told to do a survey, figure out elevations, he paid for a conditional use permit and without his knowledge the City rezoned his property in the 2020 comp plan because it was a natural flow of progression to the west. Three other houses on Elm Street were not rezoned. He paid for a conditional use permit, he has a street he cannot turn left or right out of in the morning or in the evening, he will have construction traffic, he has a 3-year old, he cannot rebuild his house or add to it because ofthe re-zoning and now the City wants to assess him on top of all the additional taxes. He can maintain his home, but he cannot do anything he wants, and the City wants to assess him another $500 to put up with this headache. Does the City understand they are assessing him for property that is worthless? The City is telling him it appreciated in value by 6% last year. He cannot sell it commercially because he cannot get the neighbors involved and he cannot sell it residentially, because who would want to buy the third largest lot in the City, but cannot do anything with it because it is zoned commercial. The river is in the back, so you also have the flood plain. He could change the flood plain if it was zoned residential through FEMA. He is sitting on worthless property that he will have 8,000 cars a day down his street because it is the only access to some ofthe businesses. There are four people on that end of 1 st Street and where do they sit? He was assessed $56 for sealcoating for a street he drives on twice a day. The City did not count the 45 semi's every morning at 7 a.m. in , front of his house and he cannot get out of his driveway. He asked Council to think about it before they make a decision. City Administrator Herlofsky has been looking at rezoning his property and he appreciated that. He suggested turning the traffic between the dentist office and the grocery store. Cars are going 45 mph past his house when leaving the access to the movie store. Mr. Gale Sprute, 11 Oak Street, stated he attended the neighborhood meetings. He addressed the traffic flow that will be going down Division Street. He spoke with Tim Gross, Lee Mann and Joe Harris and was told it would work out. Mr. Sprute was referring to the blockage at the end ofHwy 50 and Division Street. Division Street will be used to move from Denmark and Akin. He will be back to talk more about traffic once the project starts because they said it would improve the situation. He had two other concerns involving money. It was regarding the area wide assessment. The boundary to the west is Division Street. He asked when hwy 50 was reconstructed and the new Rambling River bridge was installed and hwy 50 to Denmark about 10 years ago, who paid for that? Was it an area assessment at that time? Finance Director Roland replied it was not an area wide assessment. It was a different funding mechanism. The current policy for area wide assessments was not in place in 1996. Area wide assessments began with the Pilot Knob project in 1998. The funding for that portion of Elm Street was state and federal turnback funds and County funding. Mr. Sprute was stating there are two pieces of property to the west of Division Street that is not part of the area wide assessment, Dexterity property and Rambling River property. He inquired at the last neighborhood meeting why they are not included in the area Council Minutes (Regular) December 4, 2006 Page 12 wide assessment and was told they will be part of the area assessment for the reconstruction ofhwy 50 from the Rambling River bridge to Denmark and Akin Road. That road was just improved 10 years ago. When a street is reconstructed what is the lifetime of a road. He thought it was 60-70 years. What will happen between now and that time? It has been mentioned there has been a change in the area assessment from a time back. What will happen in 50 years? He asked Council to consider changing the line from east of Division to the west to Division and Spruce to include those two pieces of property. He felt that would be fair. The citizens on the west side agree they should be part of the area assessment. His next comment involved the streetscape. The City has done a fine job in setting up a theme and he approved of the sidewalks downtown, and the monument at Vermillion River Crossing. With the streetscape for Elm Street, he felt it should be paid for the same way as the Vermillion River development. It should be ad valorum. When you assess for beautification, it is not an assessment that area wide citizens benefit from. It is a citywide benefit. If the City does an area wide expense, he is not for it because it is not fair. If it is done ad valorum he agrees with it. He asked Council to keep that in mind. The next part ofthe streetscape is he is paying $486 for the roadway, the streetlights which he does not understand because they are paying for streetlights with the streetscape, and the storm sewer. If residents have to pay for the beautification ofthe sidewalk that is 14 more of the bill they have to pay and it is not fair. That is $117 he is being asked to pay for beautification of a sidewalk. He was not complaining about the $486, that is infrastructure and he benefits from that. Everybody benefits from the beautification. Ifthe $117 would come from all the citizens in the City, that would be fair. Councilmember McKnight asked how we paid for the first streetscape proj ect in the downtown. Finance Director Roland replied it was done with a bond at the same time as County Road 72. The bonds were issued in 1999. The assessments were done against the downtown properties on an area basis. They had direct benefit as downtown businesses. The model was based on footage. The City was able to show direct benefit and that the increase to the property value was an amount equal to or less than the amount appraised for that increase to happen. Councilmember Wilson asked if there was a traffic re-route plan in place. City Engineer Mann replied there was a proposed plan at the neighborhood meeting. It has not been finalized as the plans for the project are not finalized. The County brought a plan where most ofthe traffic routing would be and people had an opportunity to comment. He did not hear any significant concern with the County's plan. The main issue is the signage and how people are directed through those areas. Councilmember Wilson asked if there will be adequate parking or if any will be lost. City Engineer Mann replied little if any parking is allowed along Elm. There may be some times on the side streets where there will be parking issues. He spoke with the owner of an apartment building and those issues will be worked out. Councilmember Wilson asked if there was a history of assessments on properties that are impacted by this project. Finance Director Council Minutes (Regular) December 4, 2006 Page 13 Roland replied the downtown streetscape occurred in 1999. The 3rd Street mill and overlay took place approximately the same time. People on 3rd Street were assessed 35% for the cost of the mill and overlay. City Engineer Mann noted the slip lining of the sanitary sewer down 3rd Street was also part of that project. There was also the Main Street project. In the last 10 years the areas covered in this area wide assessment did not have other assessments. Ms. Dooley spoke of the Walnut Street project and the reason the project did not go forward was that it became a significant cost for the entire roadway. It was pushed offto a later date. Walnut Street is on the long term CIP for the City for 5-7 years from now. City Engineer Mann stated in 1994 Oak Street from 4th Street to TH3 was reconstructed. Councilmember Wilson asked if it would be possible to get assessments for residents in the downtown project area from 1990-2006. Staff will obtain the information. He agreed with Mr. Sprute's comment that the streetscape portion has a broader community benefit than just the downtown property owners. He would like that assessed to the larger population. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked regarding the detour route, if it would go down Denmark to Spruce or go over the bridge and go on Division. City Engineer Mann replied the intent would be to route the traffic down Spruce Street. How that is accomplished and to what levels the County is willing to go for signage, remains to be worked out. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated one of two accesses will always be open to EconoFoods and the other businesses. He asked when the Walnut project is scheduled in the CIP. He recalled it was 2008. Walnut Street is in far worse shape than other streets. If those people will also be assessed for this project, Council has discussed previously sending out notices two years in advance so people can budget for it. Finance Director Roland stated the City's CIP is a fluid document. It is a planning document. Because we put a project in 2008 that project could show up in 2009 or 2010 because of the items that come before it, or the projects that jump ahead of it due to urgency of the project. Flagstaff Avenue does not show up in the CIP, yet next year we will be constructing Flagstaff Avenue due to changes in circumstances. 2008 is a planning year. It is not etched in stone and as much as we want to keep residents informed, it is premature because you are making a future Council do a project by sending out the notice two years ahead of time. It is best to exercise caution as far as future projects. Councilmember Pritzlafffelt the notice could explain this is a plan and that it can change. It is to make people aware it is in the CIP. He was not comfortable waiting 6-12 months away from a project to say that is what we are going to do. It is just more communication for the residents and gives a longer notice time. Councilmember Fogarty wanted the streetscape done. It will be a terribly inconvenient project, but it is necessary. MOTION by McKnight, second by Wilson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Jamnik informed Council the project requires four votes. Councilmember Wilson stated he would like to receive the information he Council Minutes (Regular) December 4, 2006 Page 14 requested prior to voting on the project and to find out how the financing would work if the streetscape were taken out. Finance Director Roland replied with regard to the bonding, we would have cash up front out of the water and storm water funds which would help finance the project. We would bond for the rest of it, which would include the assessed portion, the road fund portion, and the sewer fund portion. Those three items come to $2.2 million. It would be a matter of what would be repaid and you would need to reduce the special assessment by the $79,000 so there would be $79,000 more that would need to be funded with other City funds. Councilmember Wilson stated that is the direction he would like to go. Councilmember McKnight asked what is the first year of payback for the bonds? Finance Director Roland replied assuming we do the project in 2007 and meet the November 30, 2007 deadline, the first year of assessment would be 2008. If that deadline is not met, the first year of assessment would be 2009. Councilmember Pritzlaffwas comfortable with voting on the project. Councilmember McKnight was comfortable with moving forward. Funding options for the streetscape can be discussed in the next workshop. His concern was consistency. He does not want to slow the project down. Councilmember Wilson stated he would support the project. He would like to look at options for the assessment policy. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by Wilson to adopt RESOLUTION R132-06 ordering the project and authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the Elm Street reconstruction project. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember McKnight was in favor of the streetscape portion because this is a signature road for the downtown area. He is willing to look at funding options whether it is area wide or placed on the tax levy. He would like this discussed at the next workshop. Councilmember Wilson preferred the broader area, but it can be discussed at a workshop. Councilmember Pritzlaff agreed with the streetscape portion. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Frontier WiFi Presentation Ms. Melinda White, from Frontier Communications, gave a presentation on bringing a wireless network to the City. It would be available first to commercial businesses in the downtown and expand from there. Frontier would sell a monthly subscription to customers. City Administrator Herlofsky stated they are still working on the contract and exclusivity provision. Ms. White stated the process would be to obtain approval and bring in a network plan within 120 days. The City would provide input for access points for coverage. Another network Council Minutes (Regular) December 4, 2006 Page 15 provider would have their own access points at different locations. City Administrator Herlofsky noted he would like to see the network plan prior to signing an agreement. He will have a meeting with Frontier representatives to work on issues. b) Approve Equipment Shared-Use Agreement - Parks and Recreation Staff requested approval of a Shared-Use Agreement between the City's Parks and Recreation Department and the School District's Buildings and Grounds Department. The agreement solidifies past practice of borrowing equipment back and forth between the two entities. The agreement included a list of equipment to be shared on an as needed basis. MOTION by McKnight, second by Wilson to approve the Equipment Shared Use Agreement with ISD 192. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Fogarty: Attended the Safety Audit meeting and they are having a results meeting on December 12, 2006, at 1 :30 at the Empire Town Hall. She will not be able to attend this meeting. Staff did a great job on the City Calendar. Councilmember Wilson: Encouraged residents to continue making donations for Toys for Town. Councilmember Pritzlaff: He received the City Calendar in the mail and those who prepared it did a good job. City Administrator Herlofsky: The December 11 EDA meeting will not be held. He gave Council information on the Bonestroo engineering bills. This can be reviewed at a future workshop. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by McKnight, second by Pritzlaffto adjourn at 10:02 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~.;rv?J~ ~thia Muller Executive Assistant