Page Title

Just West of Waconia on Hwy 5

952-442-5000

Sebenaler Chiropractic Center

Chaska * 952-448-9908

CORNERSTONE Insurance Agency

David Barsness * 952-448-5028

8661 Deer Run Dr. * Victoria

952-443-2351

MACKENTHUN’S MEAT & DELI

St. Bonifacius * 952-446-1234

Highway 5 in Victoria

952-443-2491

Cara estimated a total project cost of $1.6 million with $790,000 of that amount being assessed and the city picking up the rest of it. Unit assessments would amount to $11,681. A four-plex apartment building in the neighborhood would be assessed 1.2 units. Community Living would be assessed 3.7 units.

Where the street would be reclaimed at 81st, unit assessment would be $5,080.

Cara projected advertising for bids in March with construction to start in May.

“It’s an expensive project for both the property owners and the city,” she said. “You do have the potential for bids to come in lower.”

Asked Councilmember Jim Paulsen about the street proposed for reclaiming, “How long will that provide a good street?”

Replied Cara, “Another 20 years. It’s a hybrid improvement in order to save costs.”

Regarding the other streets in that area Jim asked, “Is there any other option than complete reconstruction?”

Said Cara, “They’ve deteriorated beyond the point of there being another option. They’ve developed alligator cracking.”

***

Then the hearing was opened to receive comments from the public. Resident Steve Carlson spoke first. “I feel the timing is terrible for a project like this. Personally, it’s a bad time for an assessment. Most of the traffic is local and we manage. With my finances and the economy, I wouldn’t want it at this time ... What’s the critical need for the reconstruction? It’s not a 45 mph road.”

Said resident Mary Wilson, “It’s absolutely the worst economical time. I’d ask you to reconsider the timing. I bought the house in 1993 and the road was bad then. The roads have been bad for a long time. Give people a chance to recover from this economically, and do the roads in three or four years.”

Said resident David St. Cyr, “We’ve had some residents in tears over the amount of the assessment. There are a lot of retirees in the neighborhood who won’t be able to afford this. A lot of retirees were forced to go back to work. A resurfacing might buy us three to five years. My plea is for you to take a step back. This is an old neighborhood. Many people say there’s been a lack of sealcoating that could have prevented this and that the streets have been neglected.”

The city engineer replied that with resurfacing, the cracks would return in one year. “We’re past the point of getting a return on filling potholes with taxpayer dollars,” she said.

Said resident Molly Diethelm, “I’m speaking on behalf of my mother in law. It’s not clear where all the water would be going.”

Said resident Alicia St. Cyr, “When the letter comes in the mail about an assessment, why were we not informed of the amount of the assessment in writing?”

***

After the public comment was received, Council discussed the issue. Stated Councilmember Jim Paulsen, “My initial reaction is, ‘Message received!’ It’s not a good time for the city either.”

Councilmember Amundsen said to residents, “You’re not getting the numbers now because it’s still an estimate. It could be more. It could be less ... Resurfacing isn’t free. Somebody pays for that. We’ve deferred this project before, so blame me.”

Continued Tim, “I know there are people who want the new streets but they’re not here tonight. We can’t keep throwing money at bad circumstances. It stinks that the timing is bad. I don’t know if there’s ever a good time for an assessment.”

Said Councilmember Kim Roden, “Deferrals also have a cost. If we defer it, we might be putting a heavier burden on the rest of the city. I’ve become a believer in fixing the roads. There’s no free lunch here. I didn’t want to pay eight grand for my road either.”

She mentioned a concern for setting poor precedent in delaying the project and the possibility of even higher assessments should it be delayed. “I see the State propensity to increase the standards and have to pay more later, and I see oil going back up. Next time we’ll have a higher price for the homeowners and for the rest of the taxpayers [who pick up the other 50% of project costs]. I’m not in favor of deferring. I’m in favor of moving forward. I’d rather do this with oil at $60 a barrel than $120 a barrel.”

Agreed the city engineer, “It is likely there will be increased costs next year with stormwater management rules changing ... I’m anticipating they’ll come into effect in 2009. I’ve heard there’ll be a 15 to 25% increase.”

She added that assessments as estimated for the current project cannot be higher for the residents if the project is moved forward at this time. “The market has been very difficult for us to estimate,” she said. “I’d like to think they’d come in lower.”

Stated Mayor Thun, “I think these are very unusual times. There’s a high number of people losing jobs. There are eleven foreclosures in Victoria, which is not terribly high today, but there could be more. I’m a big supporter of infrastructure. If we don’t maintain it, we’re asking for trouble.”

She continued, however, “I would be inclinced to go along with a one-year delay. I have a simplistic positive view of the future. There are a whole host of issues today. I think things will settle down next year. I’m betting that costs will hold for another year. I cannot in good conscience tonight put a $12,000 assessment on a home. I think there’s enough uncertainty to delay this for one year.”

Council’s final decision on the issue was to get more information from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District on new standards and more information on senior citizen and hardship deferrals and make a decision at the December 1st city council meeting. This is a Monday night, the same evening as the Truth in Taxation Hearing is being held. The T/T meeting starts at 5 p.m., the regular meeting at 6:30 p.m.

Click here for more City Scoop.