Loading...
PSEM19680516• MINUTES OF THE MUNICIPAL SEWER COMMITTEE MEETING - May 16, 1968 Meeting held at 7:30 P. M. at the City Hall PRESENT - Mayor Wieselmann, City Engineer John Mielke, Arthur Bostater, Albert Czarnecki, Walter Wollman, Edmund Budish, Frank Narlock, Attorney Buckley, Harold DeBack, Robert Burgermeister, Kenneth Cooley. • First order of business was the discussion of assessment policies for sanitary sewer construction. It was pointed out by the engineer that these policies had been established by the City Council using linear front foot assessment computing it on the basis of the cost of an 8" sewer with increment costs for sewers in excess of this size to be financed by other methods authorized by the City Council. The assessable linear footage was defined by Mr. Mielke. Discussion followed regarding assessable and non -assessable items. Mr. Mielke also reviewed total cost of sewer projects MSS-1 thru 5. As was explained in previous meetings, assessable costs were based on 8" main, average depth of 10'. Mr. Bostater said that he did not see why the entire size of mains should not be charged against a project. Mr. Mielke said that other increment sewers will be used for other areas of the lake, Woods Road and on toward the County Line. He stated that in the case of the NE • District, progress is made toward the end, most lines are just the 8". It was asked whether operating costs had been deter- mined and the engineer said that the Milwaukee Company had pre- pared it. The Mayor asked Mr. Mielke whether it would be possible to combine all costs of all projects including the plan to continue sewers around the entire lake with the purpose of perhaps estab- lishing a uniform rate. Mr. Mielke said that it would be arbi- trarily estimated. Mr. Bostater asked if all of the costs for this project be charged to the property owners and Mr. Mielke said that he was not an attorney and therefore could not render a legal opinion, however, he did review an opinion Mr. Hammond had rendered that was that the public benefit charge must equal basis of sum sufficient clause. Mr. Buckley said that he was inclined to agree with the Engineer.... what was the value of the property before the project and what is the value since sewers. Mr. Bostater said that he feels that we are ridiculously low here. Mr. Buckley's theory was that, the cost must be based on direct benefit to the owner. A comparison of policies set thus far with that of the City of Muskego and opinion was that West Allis has an experience assess- ment charge. The Engineer mentioned that some cities such as West Allis, Milwaukee and Wauwatosa have established a flat rate. • Mr. Mielke was asked whether he would be able to quote a flat rate price and for the area completed, area under construction at present and the area to be completed around the lake. He said that it would be impossible to "peg a price." Mr. Narlock said it seemed that using an average 8" pipe in determining lineal foot charge whether actual construction charge ran $30.00 seemed unwise. Mr. Mielke said that the Council set the policy at the beginning of the first sewer phase. Question was raised regarding the procedure and charges used by the City of West Allis and the Engineer said that, that municipality has a complete history thus making it possible to charge the entire cost against a project. He further prefaced his statement by citing the fact that Milwaukee Metro -Sewer Commission, installs all of their inter- ceptors thus reducing much of the cost. Mr. DeBack said that he ,felt the present policy was unfair because "open property owners" must share the cost of entire project. The Engineer further explained that the lift station is not included in immediate project nor over -sized lines installed by necessity. Mr. DeBack felt that if more costs were assumed by the property owners benefiting by the sewers, then the City would not have to worry about goirg� into projects. Page 2 • He further felt that if each sewer project could pay for itself, than the City would not have to worry about continuing future programs. Mr. Narlock said that he thought that many areas in the State are on the same standard as to total costs, such as Eau Claire and West Allis. The Engineer offered to sit down with any community and discuss costs. Total costs of Racine Avenue and Interceptor was again reviewed. Mr. Narlock felt that the City • will be unable to complete any more sewer financing and also expressed concern over available financing for Industrial Park Development when needed. Mayor Wieselmann asked whether the next sewer project could be combined with the first project and the Engineer said that he did not know. Mr. Bostater then reviewed the pro -formula earnings, i.e., 418 residences @ $48.00 annual = 20,064, or ultimate capacity of 800 X 4 (pop. per household.) Discussion followed regarding open lands to be developed within the present project. Question was raised as to capacity of lagoon and whether completion of sewers around Little Muskego Lake could be served by present lagoon. Mr. Mielke said that the study is being made now. Mr. Bostater asked whether or not all contract prices or total costs of all projects be combined and then divided? Mr. Cooley felt that the Committee had "gotten to the crux of the proble3" He further said that he felt that figures can be used to/8wn advantage. He • also said that he has gone through this for months and it all boils down to one thing, you can twist and turn figures to own advantage, the people in his ward have not complained as yet, Racine Avenue project will benefit schools, business, etc. Mr. Bostater felt that "everything has been thrown in, but the kitchen sink." He asked how much can be reasonably assessed as benefit to property owners? He then asked whether total costs of all projects could be totalled and then divided into assessible frontage? The Engineer said that he would have to re -calculate - total cost, total front footage and then divide and would prefer not to make any estimates. He further emphasized that having to go back to the drawing board to do this would take a great deal of time. Question was raised as to what area was being referred to an Mr. Buckley clarified this by saying the gentlemen is looking for one total cost, say, for all projects including that area around lake now under study. Mayor Wieselmann asked if, for isntance, the balance of the area around the lake should run $30.00 per foot, could you not total out cost? Mr. Buckley said that you cannot charge more than cost of project, for instance, if Racine Avenue costs $161,000.00, you cannot charge more. Mr. Wollmann felt that there was nothing wrong in financing over a 30-year period. Totalling out the costs again was discussed and Mr. Buckley again said that he felt that there would exist a legal problem. • Mayor Wieselmann asked why the entire area around Little Muskego Lake was not studied and sewered and Mr. Mielke reviewed the history of the program dating back to 1951, state order, etc. Mayor Wieselmann again asked why the entire area was not considered thus serving the present people rather than plan on those to be developed such as Parkland Plaza Development? Mr. Mielke said that the present plan was developed due to engineering problems. The first phase is gravity up to the sewer district limits whereas to continue around the balance of the lake would be interceptor. Mr. DeBack felt that assessment charges to those benefiting from the sewer should be figured the same as public utility charges, \Mr. Mielke asked how his firm should proceed and Mr. Bostater said that he thought the direction should come from the Council. He felt that if the Council did not intend to use the cost analysis, there would be no point in spending the money. Mr. Mielke said that his firm could go back and re -design sewer pipe costs depending on the\ City's direction. Page 3. • Mr. Mielke again said that his firm would not care to make any rough extimates as these would be open to criticism, and to re- design costs would mean taking profiles, unit design, etc., back to the drawing boards. Mr. Narlock asked what the cost of such a study would be and Mr. Mielke said that he did not know. Mr. Mielke also emphasized the importance of determining this cost correctly in the event there is a need to check. Mayor Wieselmann said that he would want the figures to include the additional • study. Mr. Mielke asked whether they were talking about the NE District as well. He said that the problems of time as well as economics do not make it feasible to include large areas at one time. Mr. Cooley mentioned that he has heard Mr. Hahns (City of West Allis) name mentioned about 30 times thus far and that the City should not lose sight of the fact that competent engineers have been hired with experience with many neighboring communities as to costs, procedures, policies, etc. Mr. Burgermeister said that he has contacted about 13 communities regarding costs assessed to property owners and found some were assessed 90% of cost to district and some 60%. He further said that in talking to each municipality the reasons for percentage differed. He also felt that areas with experience such as West Allis could not be compared to one such as ours, without exper- ience, if for no other reason than to consider a "slush fund" they are able to draw from. It was his thought that if a community • was to be compared to our own, the area chosen should be one with comparable needs and questions. Mr. Budish felt that many questions posed this evening were of a legal nature and after further discussion regarding Mr. Budish's, Mr. Budish moved that written opinion be obtained as to whether the City would be acting legally or illegally in revising policies procedures and assessments. Motion seconded by Mr. Linck and motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, B. J. Bowyer, Sec. 6/68 mp