Loading...
10-20-1987 CC MIN - SPECIAL e e e SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL HELD AT THE ELK RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY TUESDAY. OCTOBER 20. 1987 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Gunkel. Councilmembers Schuldt and Tralle MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilmembers Dobel and Holmgren STAFF PRESENT: Patrick Klaers. City Administrator; and Terry Maurer. City Engineer Pursuant to due call and notice thereof. Mayor Gunkel called the meeting of the Elk River City Council to order at 6:25 p.m. At the time the meeting was called to order. there were no members from the public or press in attendance. The Mayor discussed with the City Council the different elements of the downtown "Beautification" Project that is included in the 1988 Main Street Improvement Project and the format of the meeting. At approximately 7:00 p.m. the Central Business District (CBD) property owners began to arrive. The Mayor informed the group of property owners that the City Council was comfortable with the different beautification elements within the Main Street Project as was discussed in the September 21. 1987. City Engineer's memo. These beautification elements included decorative street lights. trees and tree grates. trash receptacles. and a textured sidwalk. The original estimate for these items was in the $200.000.00 range. The Mayor then reviewed each item of the beautification part of the project and offered comments on how the cost could be reduced. The Mayor further indicated that the Council had previously stated that all of the beautification costs should be assessed to the benefited property owners. but that the Council has since determined that certain items should be in part or entirely financed by the City. DECORATIVE STREET LIGHTS The Mayor indicated that the City Engineer estimate from his September 21, 1987. memo had cost for 74 street lights at $300.00 per light. plus 20 percent additional expenses for a total of $26.640.00. Adding the standard 28 percent overhead to this amount and the total cost of decorative street lights reached $34.100 for street lights every 50 feet in the central business district. The Mayor indicated that based on a lower overhead percentage. total costs for decorative street lights may more realistically be in the $32.000 range provided that the City Engineers original cost estimate for lights ($300 per light) was accurate. Page 2 City Council Minutes October 20. 1987 e Councilmember James Tralle stated that the Utility Commission has discussed this issue at its previous meeting. The Commission did not approve a formal motion. but it was the consensus of the Commission that the Utilities will finance the cost for typical street lighting in this area including underground work. The Commission has requested General Electric to provide a cost estimate for street lighting in the CBD and costs above that amount for decorative lighting will have to be assumed by the benefited property owners. Mayor Gunkel indicated that the Elk River Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has approximately $10.000 in reserves. She indicated that it may be possible for the HRA to participate in the beautificaion aspect of Main Street in the CBD. Mayor Gunkel suggested that the Downtown Business Committee requests the HRA to hold a meeting and that the CBD Committee request $10.000 from the HRA for improvements in the downtown area. By having the CBD property owners receive financial assistance from the Utilties and the HRA. the final cost for decorative street lights may then become very reasonable. TREES The City Engineer. in his September 21. 1987. memo. estimated that approximately six inch diameter trees would cost $600.00 each. and that 61 trees were needed in the CBD. This amount plus 20 percent additional charges would equal $43.900.00. The 28 percent overhead being added to this amount ~ makes the Engineer's estimate for trees at $56.200.00. The Mayor indicated that the Street Superintendent. Phil Hals. is suggesting the City go with a much smaller tree that can substantially reduce this cost. Phil Hals indicated that an approximately $100 tree is much easier to install. and still has a very good likelihood of survivial. Also if these trees are damaged. the replacement cost is much more economical. Based on $100.00 per tree for 61 trees and $200.00 per tree for planting and overhead in purchasing the trees. the total cost for trees in the CBD is approximately $18.300. Mayor Gunkel indicated that the City is willing to finance this entire cost through the City Dutch Elm Program. If the CBD property owners wanted to go with a more expensive tree. then additional expenses beyond $18.300.00 would have to be assumed by the benefited property owners. The $100.00 tree mentioned above are approximately 1 1/2 inches in diameter. It was again noted that the replacement of damaged trees by weather conditions or vandals would also be absorbed through the City Dutch Elm Program. TREE GRATES e The City Engineer originally estimated that tree grates at the base of the trees would cost in the $1.000.00 per grate range. plus some additional expenses for a total of $65.000.00. Adding the City's standard 28 percent overhead to' this amount. makes the total estimated cost for tree grates at $83.200. Page 3 e City Council Minutes October 20. 1987 The Mayor indicated that the downtown business owners have examined a durable plastic tree grate that would cost approximately $400.00 per grate. Adding an approximatly 18 percent overhead to this amount would make the total cost for tree grates in the $29.000 range. Mayor Gunkel indicated that the City has no financial resources to cover this expense so the CBD property owners will have pay for the grates by way of assessments. The Mayor indicated that it would be the City's responsibility to fasten these durable plastic grates at the base of the trees and would be responsible for maintenance and cleaning around the base of the trees. TRASH RECEPTACLES The City Engineer has estimated that 16 trash receptacles at $600.00 each. plus 20 percent additional expenses would place the cost of the trash receptacles at $11.500. Adding the City's 28 percent overhead charge to this amount. would make the total cost for trash receptacles in the amount of $14.700.00. This would provide two receptacles on each side of the street per block. e The Mayor indicated that it is the City's revised estimate. which eliminated overhead charges. that the total cost for trash receptacles would be $11.500. and that no city funds are available to assist in financing this part of the Beautification Project. Therefore. all costs for trash receptacles would have to be assessed to the benefited property owners in the CBD. The Mayor further suggested that that the CBD property owners may want to investigate a less expensive model of trash receptacles and that the Committee could seek donations from various organizations within the community to help finance this part of the Beautification Project. TEXTURED SIDEWALKS The City Engineer report indicated that the additional cost between regular sidewalks and textured sidewalks is 50 cents per sqare foot. Based on 17.205 square feet of sidewalk in the CBD and adding 20 percent to this figure. makes the cost for textured sidewalks in the amount of $10.300.00. Adding the City's 28 percent overhead to this amount. placed the total cost for textured sidewalks in the $13.200 range. The Mayor indicated that a more realistic figure for this textured sidewalk would be in the $11.800 range based on a much reduced overhead expense. The Mayor further indicated that this item is not eligible for MSA funding. no City funds were available for this part of the project. and that the textured sidewalk aspect of the Beautification Project would have to be assessed to the benefited property owners. e In summary. the Mayor indicated that from the City's prospective a more realistic cost of the beautification part of the 1988 Main Street Improvement Project is as follows: Page 4 City Council Minutes October 20. 1987 e Decorative Street Lights Trees Tree Grates Trash Receptacles Textured Sidewalks $ 32.000.00 18.300.00 29.000.00 11.500.00 11.800.00 Total $102,600.00 The financing for this beautification aspect of the 1988 Main Street Improvement Project is broken down as follows: City Participation HRA Participation $ 18.300.00 (Trees) 10.000.00 (contingent upon approval of the HRA) 10.000.00 (very rough estimate of typical street light expenses) Utility Participation Assessment to Benefited Property Owners 64.300.00 Total $102.600.00 e JACKSON SQUARE It was noted by the City Engineer that no improvement of the Jackson Square Square area is being planned as part of the 1988 Main Street Improvement Project. This is being done because no consensus on the type of improvements desired in this area or the amount of needed parking space could be reached. Further. all expenses for improvements in Jackson Square. are not eligible for MSA funding and would have to be financed either through assessments to benefited property owners. city contributions. or contributions from local organizations. Clifford Lundberg. Chairman of the Downtown Business Committee, presented the Council with a concept for improvements to Jackson Square. This concept was very similar to one proposed a number of years ago to the City Beautification Committee. and had received the consensus approval of the Downtown Committee as an appropriate improvement to this area. The plan did not call for any changes or reduction in the parking area. but included a sidewalk, trees. lights, and improvement to the flag pole base within the greenspace area of Jackson Square. e Mr. Lundberg strongly recommended to the Council that Jackson Square improvements be included within the 1988 Main Street Improvement Project and that the City finance the improvements to Jackson Square in its entirety. Mr. Lundberg stated that the Committee felt that this area was a City Park and should be treated no differently than other City Parks that receive public improvements. financed through the City Park Dedication Fund. The Council directed the City Engineer. Terry Maurer. to provide cost estimates for the improvements to Jackson Square. as provided in the layout submitted by the Downtown Committee. Page 5 City Council Minutes October 20. 1987 e The Mayor then discussed. with the property owners. possible assessment methods for the part of the Beautification Project that cannot be financed through outside sources. Whether this amount is in the $64,000.00 range or increased due to improvements to Jackson Square. a fair assessment method must be determined. The Mayor indicated that the assessments for this type of project is very difficult to do on a strictly front footage basis because some buildings housed a multitude of businesses with very limited front footage. and all of these businesses receive benefit because of the Beautification Project. By assessing strictly on a front footage basis. some businesses will receive a very minor assessment. while otber businesses will receive a rather substantial assessment for the same improvements. The Council requested the Committee to try to determine a fair assessment method for Beautification Project that cannot be financed through other methods except assessements. and to report back to the City Council on their recommendation. The Committee. in turn, requested that the City Engineer also work on a proposed assessment method that he proceived as being fair to all parties. The City Council and CBD property owners agreed to try and exchange information on possible assessment methods and costs for Jackson Square improvement around the middle of November. A public hearing on the proposed improvements is planned for early December and if necessary. the property owners and City Council may get together again for a informational meeting. e The Mayor indicated the City's intent to receive bids for the Main Street Improvement Project and the Beautification part of this project as soon as possible. The Mayor also indicated that the beautificiation aspect of this project. once bids were received. would be assessed prior to the project taking place. This is a common assessment technique that has been done in many communities and in Elk River in the past few years. and allows for the City to determine tbe number of appeals to an improvement project prior to the project taking place. If there are a substantial number of appeals to the project. then serious consideration must be given to if the project should proceed or not. Chairman Lundberg stated that the entire Downtown Business Committee strongly believes that the Beautification Project is needed for improvement in the CBD. He stated that such beautification improvements would add to the Central Business District being the focal point of the community. Mr. Lundberg stro~gly opposed the assessment of the Beautification Project prior to its taking place. and made the analogy that the City is holding the CBD property owners hostage for the Improvement Project by assessing the project prior to it taking place. e Mr. Lundberg also discussed a proposed speaker system within the street lighting system. The Mayor suggested that the speaker system may possibly be located on the buildings within the CBD. or that the speakers system could be installed at a later date. The City Engineer stated that such a system is not eligible from MSA Funding. The Mayor indicated that no city funds are available for such a system. and that business owners would have to assume the cost for such a extra downtown amenity. Page 6 City Council Minutes October 20. 1987 e Mr. Dare. of Dare's Funeral Home. stated that the downtown area needs improvements for the benefit of the entire Elk River Community. Mr. Jarmoluk stated that he understands the City has limited resorces. but that the business people also have limited resorces and would like to see the City participate as much as possible financially for the improvements in the CBD. Mr. Lundberg submitted a signed statement from the Chamber of Commerce stating their support for the beautification improvements in the downtown area and requested that the City. as much as possible. finance these improvements in a method other than assessements to the benefited property owners. Mr. Steve Johnson. of Johnson's. stated that he appreciated the Council working as hard as they have in trying to accomplish the beautification improvements in the downtown area. He further indicated that improvements are desperately needed and that the cost of the improvement. as discussed tonight. appear to be reasonable. Mr. Johnson further stated that if there are other financial alternatives or other beautification items that should be included. that these issues should be further evaluated. e Mr. Lundberg requested that the City assume responsiblity for snow removal on the sidewalk in the CBD. He stated that the property owners were willing to accept an assessment for this municipal service. The Council directed the City Staff to evaluated the financial. administrative. and legal ramifications of the City assuming such responsibility. The Administrator recommended to the Downtown Committee that it would be much easier administratively and much cheaper for the Committee to simply hire a young individual or a service to clear the sidewalk of snow during the winter months. Some of the concerns indicated by the Administrator included increase legal liability. the timing of sidewalk snow removal when street snow removal has a much higher priority. the equipment needed to provide such a service. the contracting for an employee to provide this service. plus the constant problem of trying to satisfy so many individuals that have various expectations of the service. Further concerns indicated additional requests from residential property owners for the same services as provided in the CBD. Additional concerns for snow removal in the CBD included property owners that did not want this service and would not accept an assessment for such municipal services. The staff will report back to the City Council on this issue. COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER TRALLE SCHULDT MOVED TO SECONDED ADJOURN THIS MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. e The meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted. ,/:zt -L/ ~ v ~O d Patrick Klaers --