Loading...
10-17-1983 CCMMINUTES PUBLIC HEARING MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1983 The public hearing was called to order by Mayor DeMeyer at 7:30 P.M. in the Ele- mentary School Auditorium. Present were: Mayor James G. DeMeyer, Alderman Mike Carls, Alderman John Mlinar, Alderman Ted Beatty, City Administrator Gary D. Plotz, Director of Engineering Marlow V. Priebe, City Attorney Schaefer, City Accountant Kenneth B. Merrill, and Maintenance Operations Director Ralph Neumann. Absent: Alderman Kenneth Gruenhagen. Mayor DeMeyer opened the hearing by reading Publication No. 3133 and stated the purpose of the meeting was to review Assessment Roll No. 170 for street mainten- ance assessment. The assessment roll took in most of the streets in Hutchinson, with the exception of streets south of Fifth Avenue, namely, Franklin, Grove Street, Glen Street, Brown Street;and Division Avenue, Miller Avenue and Milwaukee and Lin- den between Lynn Road and Main Street due to the proposed 1984 construction project, as well as other streets that recently had construction that met criteria of con- struction. The Mayor stated three letters of opposition to the project had been received at City Hall prior to the hearing. City Administrator Plotz then read the contents of the letters from Eric and Myra Braun, Edna Thran, and Crow River Press, Inc. It was reported by the Mayor that he had received many calls and communications regarding the proposed assessment since the public hearing held on June 27, 1983. He reviewed the background of how the proposed assessment developed due to a con- cern of the poor condition of many streets in town. The assessed $500,000 would be spread over a five year period. Mayor DeMeyer stated there had to be an ac- countability for the expense. Bob Hall Mr. Hall asked what benefit the citizens would 345 Monroe receive from the assessment. City Engineer Priebe Engineer Priebe reported he had recently sent the Council members a memorandum to update them on the assessment process for the maintenance program. He then reviewed the different types of streets and the corresponding costs. Bob Hall He stated the only chuck hole on his street was caused by a manhole being dug out; otherwise, the street is in good shape. He felt the residents would be over -charged for what would be done. City Engineer Mr. Priebe commented the City needed a stronger maintenance program or a construction program. Money has been short so maintenance has not been done on streets that needed it. PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 17, 1983 $4.00 a square foot. He also stated there were bad cracks in the street after a severe winter. It was his suggestion that the City put a sealer coat on the cracks, but it was never done. Mayor DeMeyer The Mayor mentioned there were funds already in place that could be used for street maintenance. Robert Hartsuiker Mr. Hartsuiker remarked that he had attended the 305 Erie first hearing for discussion of the maintenance program. The only change was that the gravel streets had been broken off. There are many type "A" streets in the City that are used as heavy traffic streets, and there is highway maintenance on certain streets. The type "A" street residents will be bearing the brunt of maintenance for the highway while their street(s) are poorly maintained. He pointed out he lived on a dead-end street. It was his contention that other "B" and "C" type streets should be brought up to help balance off the costs since the people on those streets also use "A" streets. Some type "C" street residents had petitioned the City to have their street(s) built up and improved. There was no maintenance policy at that time. It was his suggestion that the cost be brought down to 75C or 8ft. and add the split over the other types of streets. Richard Schmidtbauer Mr. Schmidtbauer inquired what was considered the 120 Century Avenue south termini of the street. He was being assessed for two years, and the street still wasn't graded. City Engineer The City Engineer explained that Schmidtbauer's lots that are under construction are not included in the maintenance assessment program. However, he has lots located on Century Avenue that are in- volved. Roger Lund Mr. Lund stated he had a written letter of objec- (Representing Edna Lund) tion to file against the project. Rt. 2, Boller Road Mayor DeMeyer Mayor DeMeyer stated he was opposed to the program and read his Objection to Assessment. He then made available to all in attendance a form for Objection to Assessment and had said form distributed to the audience. -3- PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 17, 1983 Keith Nonweiler Mr. Nonweiler reported he was being assessed for Hwy. 15 South six feet. The street wasn't being maintained by (Business on Dale St. the City, and he had never seen a City truck fill - and South Grade Road) ing any holes on his street. Mayor DeMeyer The Mayor stated the assessed money would go into a "slush fund," and there was no guarantee to the citizens that the money would be used for street maintenance. He then called on the City Council members for an answer. Alderman Ted Beatty Alderman Beatty assured the citizens the money would, indeed, go into a fund to maintain the City streets. Alderman Mike Carls Alderman Carls stated that when the maintenance fund is referred to as a "slush fund," it can be very misleading. He then cited the example of "A" streets as a guarantee that the maintenance work will be performed. "A" streets are to be seal coated every four years. Alderman John Mlinar Alderman Mlinar pointed out the maintenance fund would be used for materials only and not for the purchase of equipment. The future protection to the citizens would be a well defined policy that would not change. Don Hansen Mr. Hansen commented he was being assessed for a 690 Lakewood Drive type "C" street for'part of the lot and type "A" for the last 100 feet facing toward Maryview Addi- tion. He has lived in his home six to seven years, and in that period of time the street has been main- tained once. The street is in good condition and has no holes; therefore, it does not need to be done every four years. The only existing cracks or holes are along the edge where the blade caught. He recommended a different alternative. Seven years ago he had requested a permanent street, but the City put in a "C" street. Now he was being assessed for maintenance. Harold Grams Mr. Grams compared the maintenance program to auto 540 Lincoln Avenue maintenance, which is required. It is no different for the street program throughout the City. If there is going to be a decent street system in town, the City must establish a program so that certain streets are maintained. He raised a question on the amount of the assessment. One foot of concrete three inches thick would cost approximately $1.20 a square foot; therefore, he wondered why it would cost the City -2- PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 17, 1983 City Engineer Bob Hall Mayor DeMeyer Engineer Priebe stated the City did not have to do as much maintenance on type "B" and "C" streets inasmuch as they did not require it. Mr. Hall inquired if the assessment program would be a one-time thing or if it would be repeated again down the road. The Mayor responded future City Councils would have to address the issue. Those with a need can come before the Council. Leslie Smith Mr. Smith commented he lived next door to Bob Hall. 346 Monroe He questioned what the citizens would receive for their money, when and how soon. He has already paid for several assessments. The street in his area is in good condition, and the center section of the street does not require much maintenance. Louis Wichterman Mr. Wichterman had received an assessment notice, Rt. 3 - Idaho Street but he had a private road. He wondered why he was being assessed for maintenance when he did his own grading, etc. Mayor DeMeyer Mayor DeMeyer answered that if it was a dedicated street, it would come under the same policy as for other City streets. Roger Lund Mr. Lund stated he had received three different assessment notices which did not match the property, and one was along the shopping mall which was pri- vately owned. Mike Duclos Mr. Duclos asked what in the past determined what Rt. 2 - Kimball was involved and to be paid. (W.D. Enterprises) Mayor DeMeyer The Mayor responded that assessment policies by Ordinance have revisions to meet the situations. It was determined by structural application of the street. Mike Duclos He commented there are a lot of gravel streets in town to be maintained and one goes past his prop- erty. Mr. Duclos wanted to know what he would get for $700 in the next four years. -4- PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 17, 1983 Larry Erickson Mr. Erickson inquired if the assessments on the 354 School Road short side of the streets included the cost for the other streets the City would be covering. City Engineer The City Engineer answered "no." The assessment was for only the front property and not side streets. Twenty percent of the City streets were not being assessed. Larry Erickson He questioned who was keeping up the other side of the street if it was not in the cost price. City Engineer Mr. Priebe responded that it would be the City's re- sponsibility, and the City Council would have to find funding for same. They could bond for 20 percent of a 429 project. Larry Erickson Mr. Erickson stated that 15 percent of the assess- ment cost went for engineering and administrative costs when his street was constructed. If more streets were being done, there would be additional money added to this fund. The City has not been following its 10 -year plan because of petitions received from the people affected to stop the projects. Therefore, no money has been going in- to the street fund. He then suggested two grades of roads for the City, ie an expensive permanent street and a cheaper street to get the work done. The County picks up some of the cost on certain streets in town. We need to get back to the good streets the City needs. City Engineer Engineer Priebe commented there was a maximum amount of work the City could afford to do yearly. Some of the systems are not cost effective. If the proposed maintenance program was improved and brought back to the people, they could be convinced that spending money on certain types of streets was not cost effective. The people have the oppor- tunity to make a choice regarding streets. Larry Erickson He asked about being assessed in 1983 and the work done in 1984. City Engineer City Engineer Priebe reported the non -assessable share would be bonded by the City, and that por- tion of the cost would come from other areas. -5- PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 17, 1983 Don Hansen Mr. Hansen stated there was a field across the 690 Lakewood Drive road from his property. Seven years ago he had requested a permanent street, which was not ap- proved by the City. Now he was being asked to put $500 into the maintenance program. City Engineer Mr. Priebe explained that not all the work had been completed in this area because the land across the road was not in the City limits. The City Council has not forced or pushed property owners to become annexed into the City. Robert Hartsuiker Mr. Hartsuiker commented there were two different 305 Erie things stated on the notice received. The first notice said the assessment would be for 1983 work to be paid in 1984, and the second notice stated the cost was for 1984 work to be paid in 1984. City Engineer Engineer Priebe reported the City had gone from one system to another. They had started out with the idea of assessing in 1983 for work to be done in 1984. However, it was determined there was enough money available for 1983 so there would be no charge until the assessment program began in 1984, with a four year period for collection. Larry Erickson He asked if this would be an on-going system. Pat Mikulecky Mr. Mikulecky stated he had received notices for 385 Connecticut two parcels located on School Road and Connecticut Street with gravel street assessments. He thought Connecticut should be classified as an A-1 type of street. Mr. Mikulecky then raised a question re- garding all the streets in the community being assessed for maintenance and wondered who had asked for the program. City Engineer The City Engineer remarked he had been aware for several years that there was a lack of street main- tenance due to a shortage of funds. He had pre- sented the problem to the Council many times and was pushing them to address the issue. During the months of June and July the Council re -ached the point of setting a public hearing date. There are several ways this problem could be resolved, but the maintenance program is the one the City Engin- eer recommended. In the program he has tried to address the different types of streets. PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 17, 1983 Pat Mikulecky He believed it was up to the people to petition for better streets. Any proposals that benefit the people should come from the people to the City Council and staff rather than the other way. City Engineer The City Engineer responded that would be the best way, but it doesn't happen. Pat Mikulecky Mr. Mikulecky inquired what would happen if the whole program was "canned." City Engineer Mr. Priebe stated there would only be one choice - do nothing next year. Pat Mikulecky He commented he would rather pay a little more and receive a permanent street. He was not in favor of the maintenance program. Mr. Mikulecky asked how many cities in the State of Minnesota had a project similar to the one proposed for Hutchinson. City Engineer The City Engineer reported Bloomington had been us- ing this method for years; however, the City of Bloomington plans to quit the program. He was not sure of the reason. The City of St. Paul is con- sidering it. Pat Mikulecky Mr. Mikulecky asked why Hutchinson was going to be "unique" if only two cities in the State had a plan like this. He wanted to know why the City couldn't find money in the budget to pay for the streets. City Engineer Engineer Priebe made reference to the good streets in Glencoe and their improvement plan. Pat Mikulecky He stated the notice did not indicate what they were getting, ie gravel, oil, etc. City Engineer Mr. Priebe responded that the wording in the notice was taken from the "429 improvement project book." Pat Mikulecky He felt the value of the property should be increased at least to the value of the assessment. Mr. Miku- lecky then used the example of a gravel road, with no increase of value to the property. City Attorney City Attorney Schaefer asked what kind of road a person would have after four years if there was no improvement or maintenance. He pointed out that if -7- PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 17, 1983 the streets are maintained and improved, the prop- erty will be worth more. The same argument could hold for any type of street. Pat Mikulecky Mr. Mikulecky commented that $12,000 was in the 1984 budget for street maintenance materials. He stated that two accounts have been shifted back and forth during the past two years. He asked what the $12,000 would include. City Accountant Accountant Merrill stated the amount had been re- duced from $12,000 as previously shown on the pre- liminary budget. Pat Mikulecky He objected to the proposed program. It will not affect the value of his property. He questioned why the minimal street maintenance would now cost $500,000 when in the past there was money in the budget to cover this. City Engineer The City Engineer pointed out the City has not been doing minimal maintenance, and it needs to get the streets back into shape. Pat Mikulecky Mr. Mikulecky remarked he could hire Erickson & Templin Contracting to do the block of 10 houses for a little over one hundred dollars. He was opposed to the assessment. Dale Annis 871 Dale Street Mr. Annis asked why they had to pay for improvement on a county road. He had never seen a City truck in the area doing street maintenance. City Engineer The City Engineer responded that the county streets were part of the City street system. Mr. Annis had a type B street, but he was being assessed in the type C category. Bob Hall Mr. Hall commented that the City only owned three feet on each side of the center line. He wondered why the county didn't pay for improvement since they owned the street. Alderman Mike Carls Alderman Carls inquired what kind of maintenance would occur. 15:2 PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 17, 1983 City Engineer Mr. Priebe stated the county takes care of 74 per- cent of the county road and the City the balance. There is a program in place for 1985 to rebuild Second Avenue. The curb and gutter will be City cost, and the center 24 feet will be paid for by the county. Alderman Mike Carls Alderman Carls asked if the City could assess the property on a front foot basis when there might not be any maintenance done on it. City Attorney Attorney Schaefer remarked that the City was look- ing at the program over an extended period. The cost for each type of street was determined by finding out what the average maintenance would be for that type of street over a four year period, with a certain amount of work to be done. If a street would not have any work done on it over the next four years, the property owner should not be assessed since there would be no benefit. Alderman Mike Carls Alderman Carls commented the City could get into a problem by lumping streets together. Regarding county roads, he was not sure of the maintenance to be done. City Attorney The City Attorney stated he was not an expert in this area so he relied upon the City Engineer's ex- pertise for the street maintenance program. If the property owners appealed the assessments, there could be a problem. City Engineer City Engineer Priebe reported he based the main- tenance on the dollars, and the program will fit the assessment. With no funds, there will be no program. The Mayor called for all the signed petitions opposing the maintenance program to be brought forward, and the City Administrator read the 22 names on said petitions. Alderman John Mlinar Alderman Mlinar made reference to the letter re- ceived from Leonard Riemann and inquired why his two abutting parcels had different per foot assess- ment charges. Bob Stearns Mr. Stearns stated this hearing was a political 375 First Avenue N.W. meeting, and he did not appreciate the way in which the hearing had been run. The assessment PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 17, 1983 program was one the Mayor had supported during the previous hearing, but tonight he had changed his view. The Mayor had come out in front of the constituents and cable TV camera and berated the City Council members and staff. Then he had asked for objections to be submitted. There was no way the Mayor could get the program through now. Mr. Stearns commented he was opposed to the program for the following reasons. The property owner should pay assessments on the street in front of his/her own property. There are inequities in the program. People who live on good roads will be paying for maintenance which will help maintain poor roads in the City. Mayor DeMeyer The Mayor summarized that the people of Hutchinson wanted good roads, but they were opposed to the street maintenance program. Alderman Beatty made the motion to close the hearing at 9:43 P.M. Motion seconded by Alderman Carls and unanimously carried. The motion was made by Alderman Mlinar to reject the proposed street maintenance program. Alderman Carls seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Alderman Carls stated it was a bottom line of fact that the streets in town needed work done on them. In the past the Council had looked at improvement projects that had been rejected, but they did not go ahead with them. The Council had held work- shops regarding the maintenance of the streets. Now it appears the people don't want to maintain the streets either. Hundreds of tax payers have paid for streets that require minimal maintenance. They are being asked to pay for poor streets, and the tax payers should not be asked to pay for more and more when they've al- ready paid for their own street. Alderman Carls commented that local government was not easy. The Council would have to go back and figure out a fair program. In closing, he remarked that the Mayor was in favor of the program when it was discussed at workshops. Now he has changed his view. Alderman Beatty commented he had no discussion on the motion. Alderman Mlinar mentioned that something should he done concerning City streets. The City Council had gone about this with a new philosophy of how to maintain streets. The concept was not very popular inasmuch as few cities have it. Once in, it would be difficult to get out of the program. It would require additional taxes from citizens who have paid for streets. If the people are looking at the -10- PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER. 17, 1983 20 percent of $500,000, they have not looked at the amount the City must provide. The Council should have looked at the program closer. What has resulted from all of the staff's work was that some type of progress had occurred. The Council has found some of the possible solutions to some of it. Now they must look ahead, with staff input. There are other options for the Council to come up with the means for street maintenance. Alderman Mlinar wanted to see the study continued and to look at many of the things learned thus far. He suggested going back to the drawing board and taking a look at structure of assessments and learn from the experience. He felt the City must look at the content of what has been said rather than the numbers. During discussion, City Attorney Schaefer called attention to the term "slush fund" which was used by the Mayor earlier in the hearing. He stated the phrase implied misuse of public monies and that the $500,000 contingency fund could be used for whatever the money was needed. He assured the audience this would not be the case. If the assessment program had passed, it would be administered under the Minnesota Statute 429 which spells out what can be done with the monies. The City could use the special assessments to pay back the bonds used for construction costs of the project or use the special assessments for costs of construction for which assess- ments were levied. The City could not move the money into other areas of City government. This would be considered a crime. Mayor DeMeyer then clarified his earlier statement and retracted any insinuation of wrongdoing by the City. What he meant was that the money was not designated to be spent on specific streets. Alderman Mlinar moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 P.M. Motion seconded by Ald- erman Carls and approved unanimously. -11-