Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/26/75 Board of Public Works Special Meeting Minutes30t SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 1975 1 1 A special meeting of the Board of Public Works was convened at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 26, 1975 in the Rum Village Nature Center. Mr. Farrand and Mr. Seitz were present. .Also, present was David A. Wells, Manager of the Bureau of Design and Administration. The Clerk tendered proofs of publication of notice of this hearing in the South Bend Tribune and the Tri-County News which were found. to be sufficient. Mr. Farrand introduced the members of the Board of Public Works and Mr. Wells to the audience. He then explained to those present that the purpose of this hearing was to explain the Barrett Law procedures and to present preliminary assessments for the installation of sanitary sewers in the Homeland Addition. Mr. Farrand said this City adminis- tration, in cooperation with the Common Council, has been proposing to the citizens in areas which are not sewered that sewer construction be done under the Barrett Law. Mr. Farrand noted that Walter T. Kopczynski, Sixth District Councilman, was present at the hearing. Mr. Farrand continued that traditionally a Barrett Law project has meant the citizens in the affected area would be 100% of the costa The Administration and the Council have agreed that the City will pay 50% of the cost of such sewer construction. That is the program that is being offered tonight should the citizens elect to go with.the project. This project is the last major project in the City where there are no sanitary sewers. Mr. Farrand said a preliminary assessment roll for this project had been filed with the Board of Public Works. When residents read of the proposed project in the newspaper, they contacted the City and indicated that they did not feel the area needed sewers. A petition with the signatures of over 70% of the affected property owners was presented to the Board indicating that they did not want the project. When that petition was filed with the Board of Public Works, the Board abandoned the project. State law provides that if 51%--of-the.affected property owners remonstrate, the property cannot be built. Mr. Farrand then explained that the Board of Public Works. received a letter requesting that a public hearing be held on this sewer project. That is the reason the hearing was scheduled for tonight. Mr. Farrand said that all procedures required by State Law are followed in a Barrett Law procedure. He said when an assessment roll has been filed, the Board can divide the project and proceed with only half of the project if that is what the property owners want. He said once an assessment roll is filed with the Board, the assessment cannot be raised. If the contract price for the construction is less than was anticipated, the cost could be lowered. After the project was abandoned by the Board, the Board received a request from some property owners in the area who indicated that they did have sewer problems and they asked that the Board proceed with a public hearing so the matter could be explained to them. Mr. Farrand then turned the meeting over to Mr. Wells for a more detailed explanation of the project. Mr. Wells explained to those present that the Barrett Law procedure for improvements has been in existence since about 1900, and has allowed property owners to have constructed certain improvements, such as sewers, sidewalks, curbs, pavement, etc. He explained that the offer of the City to pay 50% of the cost is a unique situation. He said if the project is turned down and, at some later time, the County Health Officer determines that there is a health and safety hazard in the area, he can order the sewers constructed and the Board of Public Works would then be mandated to go ahead with the project. This would then involve 100% cost to the property owners. Mr. Wells indicated that the last time the Board was mandated to put in sewers was in 1970 and the project was the construction of the Beale Street sewers. Raw sewage was being pumped into the street in this area and it was determined that a health hazard did exist. Mr. Wells explained to the property owners that, if the project is constructed, they would have the option of choosing how to pay for the assessment. They could pay the sewer cost in cash upon completion of the project or they could elect to pay the cost in five yearly installments, billed by the County Treasurer at 6% interest. Mr. Wells then displayed a map of the proposed construction area and pointed out the way the sewer construction MEN SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 1975 is planned... Mr. Wells said detailed plans for the project are available for inspection by any interested property owners after this meeting. Preliminary assessment rolls showing the.cost per property owner for the project were then distributed to those present. Mr. Wells indicated that the construction would include a tap to each property line and they would make every effort to place the taps where the owners wanted them. From the.sewer tap at the property line to the house, it would be the property owner's responsibility to pay the cost. That cost presently is about $6.00 a foot. Mr. Farrand said the Board would answer any questions. Mr. Price, 2617 W. Fairview, owner of Lots 84, 85 and 86, said the project was knocked down once by a petition of the property owners and he asked why it was being considered again. Mr. Farrand said the Board of Public Works had been requested to conduct the public hearing and the purpose of the hearing was to get the .views of the affected property owners. Mr. Price asked if the matter would be brought up again each time someone inquired about it. Mr. Farrand said no. Mr. Ronald Nace, 2642 Victoria Street, asked what percentage of the people had asked for the,pub.lic hearing. Mr. Farrand said the number does not matter. He said one person can initiate a hearing on a project. Mr. Funk, 1608 Oliver Street, owner of Lots 28, 29 and 30, said the part of Ewing Avenue included in the project is not in existence at this time and he asked who would pay for the paving of the street. Mr. Wells said the pavement would be part of the total project. Mr. Dan Walkowiak, 1020 N. Sheridan, owner of Lots 349, 350, 351 and 352 said he has not even been able to find his lots. He was advised to check the plans after the meeting. Mr. Price, 2617 W. Fairview, asked what the sewage charge would be if this project went in,and, also, the water charge. Mr. Farrand said, for those who do not have waterbills, the charge would be the minimum of $3.40 a month. He said those who have City water would be charged on the basis of water consumption. Mr. Chadwick, 2722 Fairview, asked what area the sewer construction was mandated in in 1970. Mr. Wells answered that this was the Beale Street Sewer, west of Riverside Drive. Mr. Chadwick inquired how close to a septic system a water system could be installed. He was advised that these regulations change and are covered in the zoning regulations. Mr. Ed Nowak, 2407 S. Meade Street, said he felt that when the area was annexed, the City got the opportunity to do what it pleased. He said, under the State Statutes of Indiana with respect to sewers, if the City wanted to it could put them in whether they were needed or not. Mr. Farrand said the project will not be built if more than 50% of the property owners remonstrate against the -.sewer ponstruction. C7 CD W W 1 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 1975 Mr. Grzeskowiak,_2606 S. Kaley, said he had to leave the meeting and he asked what he needed to do to show that he does not want the project built. Mr. Farrand then advised everyone present that the Board has a petition on file with more than 70% of the property owners remonstrating against the project. As far as the Board of Public Works is concerned, the project is abandoned. It will take a petition of 51% of the property owners in favor of the project to resurrect it and this would have to be within a reasonable period of time. Mr. Farrand said those property owners who signed the petition remonstrating against theprojectwho want to stay on record as opposing the project can just leave this meeting. Property owners who are in favor of the project and want to go on record that.they are in favor of it can give their names to the Clerk and they will be recorded. Upon motion made, seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at 8:13 p.m. ATTEST: CLERK A. oell in E. arrand James R. Seitz