Council once again discusses streets; no consensus found
OSMOND — The Osmond City Council met on Monday, Aug. 30, in the city conference room for a special meeting to once again discuss street improvement projects.
Mayor Dennis Kuhl stated that, on Tuesday, Aug. 24, the council had their annual budget workshop, which included setting the budget for street improvements. He said the city’s auditor helped council in their decision to set the street improvements budget to $850,000.
Since the budget was set to $850,000, council knew that they had a tough decision to make on the $3.1 million 2022 Street Improvement project in deciding which districts to move forward with. Kuhl stated that, at the meeting, council felt that moving forward with Districts 2021-7 and 2021-8 would benefit the community since those two are in the business district in town.
Councilman Doug Schmit said he thought it would be beneficial to sit down and see what information Steve Parr, JEO Engineer, would be able to provide the city with and help council make a decision on what streets would be moving forward. Parr provided council and the public with a handout of the breakout for cost opinion summary on each district which included the information shown above.
Parr stated that Districts 2021-4, 2021-7 and 2021-8 were almost completed for the design portion.
Jim Schmit addressed the council, stating that the county had looked into replacing about 1.5 miles with concrete, to include Prairie Street, and that would have been about a $1.8 million project. Instead, they considered an $800,000 option with grinding up the existing road, adding millings and double shooting with oil.
Schmit asked if that would be an option for the council to look at. Parr stated the life expectancy of a concrete street is right around 50 years compared to an asphalt street only being about 20 years. Around year 20, the city would have to look at doing a mill and overlay.
Parr was asked, if the storm sewer is taken out of District 2021-1, what options does the city council have. He stated that Osmond would be able to utilize the Main Street storm sewer, add a culvert half block west of Meadow and need to have ditches behind the roadway, all diverting water back to the existing storm sewer.
Councilman Neil Wattier asked about the possibility of having a low water crossing to the culvert half a block west of Meadow Street and have the water drain back to mid-block towards the existing storm sewer on Main Street with no pipe involved. Parr explained the negativity toward doing that since, during the winter, ice and water would just sit at the low water crossing.
A few of the Fourth Street residents who were present at the meeting voiced their opinion about not wanting the storm sewer involved, which would save about $400,000 on District 2021-1 alone, and cutting back the cost of the general obligation that the residents of Osmond would be paying for.
Many residents voiced their concern about the Fourth Street project because of the cost of $806,700 alone. Parr responded to Steve Manzer’s question about how the street assessments are determined by stating that the cost is usually divided by 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3, but the previous council decided to add more to the general obligation and reduce the running foot cost for property owners, since the 2019 flood was the reason for those streets being damaged and needing repairs to be done right away.
Parr went on to explain that the items included in the property owner assessment include concrete paving, subgrade preparation, excavation/embankment and proportionate amount of the following costs: engineering, legal, fiscal, publication, interest, etc. Remaining items would go towards the general obligation cost.
Any property that abuts the paving is assessed; the assessment zone is typically one-half block away from the paving. That one-half block zone is divided into three equal zones. The first zone closest to the paving is assessed 50% of the running foot cost, the second zone away from the paving is assessed 30% of the running foot cost and the third zone away from the paving is assessed 20% of the running foot cost.
Justin Orr asked how much has the city received from FEMA for streets on this project. Treasurer Brittney Timmerman stated that FEMA representative Cindy Hoffman had submitted her appeal and just recently responded to an email from FEMA in regard to the streets. Timmerman informed the residents that Hoffman had been in contact with a few different communities to help understand what they request, since some communities have had to submit appeals five times before receiving any FEMA funding.
Every meeting that has been held regarding the streets, there are always residents stating, “Well, we paid for our street so why should we have to pay for someone else’s?” John Schmit pointed out that his street has never been concrete, and yet he is paying on five other streets from previous bonds that won’t be paid off for another nine years.
Council stated that every property owner who receives an assessment pays for their share of the street if their property sits within a district. For the general obligation portions, all residents within the city limits pay a percentage of that based on their property valuation.
According to the city’s budget workshop, if the full $850,000 is bonded for 20 years, the tax asking, depending on debt service and interest rates at the time of bonding, could range from $70-$100 per $100,000 valuation and possibly a little more based on interest rates.
Joe Aschoff voiced concern, stating that Fourth Street has been brought to council several times before and they always have the same response — that the project costs too much.
Councilman Dan Timmerman asked about re-districting three of the street districts and starting over with sending letters to properties and upping the property owners’ share from $65 a running foot to $100 or even $125 so it would cut cost of the general obligation side and maybe residents would then be in favor.
Steve Parr responded that if the property owners’ running foot cost is increased to $100, the assessed value would increase $89,600, which in turn would decrease the general obligation cost $89,600 just for Districts 2021-1, 2021-7 and 2021-8.
After much lengthy discussion back and forth on what the council should or shouldn’t do, Treasurer Timmerman informed council that if they proceed with Districts 2021- 7 and 2021-8, their total cost would be $543,600, leaving an additional $306,400 for street repairs. She mentioned if they want to continue with 2021-1 and leave the storm sewer out and add to the other two districts, it would still be over budget.
After much discussion, Parr was asked to halt all work and Mayor Kuhl tabled the discussion until the September council meeting.
