Third Time's a Charm?

In other infrastructure plans, the council unanimously agreed to apply for a grant — for the third time — to fund a tunnel under County Highway 14 along Clearwater Creek. Larson said this may be the last chance for the city to secure such a grant.
The route would be used for bicyclists and students who want a safer way to cross the road on their way to school, Capra said.
City Engineer Mark Statz (Bonestroo Consultant) said the project has a better chance of getting funded this time by the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
“(The safe route) is rising to the top of this next budget cycle,” he said.
One concern about the proposed tunnel is spring flooding of Clearwater Creek, which could submerge the path and render it useless for extended time periods. Partially draining the creek and lowering its level below the proposed path could help alleviate the problem, Statz said.
Another concern was voiced by council member Tom Lee, who believes the added construction will make things worse on Highway 14.
“It will be a nuisance for everyone for more than a day,” he said.
Statz estimated that construction of such a path would take about a month and a half.

Quad Press
Nicholas Backus
Tuesday, 11/18/2008

How much money do you suppose this will cost the citizens of Centerville? Partially draining a creek could be a pretty penny if not completely covered under the proposed grant. The tunnel on Birch Street frequently floods...

Special Tax Assessment Hearing

Hearing on $2.8 million Street and Utility Improvements Tentatively set for Jan. 7, 2008
A public hearing to discuss the 2009 Street and Utility Improvement Project has to wait until next year, as the Centerville City Council unanimously decided Nov. 12 that it needs more information on the water improvement portion.
The hearing is tentatively set for Jan. 7.
A major issue to consider in the project — estimated to cost $2.8 million — is financing of the initial water main construction, as residents would not pay until they used the water. A city water enterprise fund would pay for initial water main extensions in developed areas, but costs wouldn’t be collected until after hook-up, according to City Administrator Dallas Larson.
The plan is a departure from the 2004 assessments and previous projects in which work was assessed at completion.
“We want to be fair to (those assessed in) 2004 and the others before, because they have already done their part,” said Mayor Mary Capra.

The council will meet Dec. 1 for a workshop to further discuss the project and Capra said further workshops might also be necessary.

“This will have a big impact on taxpayers and we have the responsibility to give it due diligence,” she said.
As for the 2009 Street Project as a whole, tax levy costs for all Centerville residents and commercial properties are estimated as follows, according to Larson.

The pay period would be 15 years per the project’s bond financing.
• Owners of a home with a market value of $250,000 would pay $152.54 annually.
• Owners of home with a market-value of $500,000 would pay $305 annually.
• Owners of a commercial property with a market value of $250,000 would pay $259.32 annually.
• Owners of a commercial property with a market value of $500,000 would pay $564.59 annually.
Projected costs have yet to be finalized, however, and Capra said the city might still pull or add roads to the project.
Full Story Here
Quad Press
Nicholas Backus
Tuesday, 11/18/2008

Selective Ordinance Enforcement Part Five

Is the City using the selective ordinance enforcement to impact the election?
City ordinance is quite clear, there shall be no more than one political
sign per candidate per residential property. Why have some residents received letters from the City asking to remove signs in opposition of Mary Capra and Jeff Paar while their signs are left standing? What makes this issue particularly disturbing is the fact that Tom Lee is currently in violation and as a sitting council member, he should know better. Does the current council think they are above the ordinance laws?


The City has been removing signs they consider to be in violation of the ordinance and is dropping them behind the Public Works building, near the dumpster. If you are missing any, this might be a good place to look first.

UPDATE! Council Member Tom Lee is in compliance with the sign ordinance as of this evening. (10/27/2008)

Selective Ordinance Enforcement Part Three

From: JUDY TOM LEE
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 6:44 AM

Subject: RE: City Right of Way/Easement
Hi XXXX,
I spoke with Paul Palzer (the Building OFFICIAL) last night regarding your fence and tree. He confirmed that in his opinion, while a "technical" violation of the ordinace, the landscaping done on your property creates no problems for the city regarding snow plowing, nor does it create a line of sight issue when driving. Council considers his opinion when enforcing the ordinance. Though you MAY receive a letter to inform you of the ordinance and that if the city NEEDED to remove your landscaping for some reason, you would be required to do so without compensation. No action is required by you at this time all. It is likely you may not even be sent a letter, as you are already aware of this.
Talk to you later, Tom

As of today, the resident has not received a letter regarding the ordinance violation the City clearly states he/she is in.
What is the point of having ordinaces if they are not enforced equally? The City deals with violations on a complaint basis (call Mary Capra and ask) which leaves the door wide open for feuding neighbors and busy bodies. To those that might not know, Tom Lee is a sitting council member and condones this procedure.

Tom Lee Council Member Response to Resident

Tom Lee Says:
May 8, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Ms XXXX,I’m not a politician, so I won’t speak to you like one. I’ll address your comments in the same tone as they are presented.
"Nobody was paid to be at the May 1, 2008 meeting, nobody that is except the city council. The rest of us were there because we care. Care about our city, our neighborhood and our neighbors".
If you think anyone sits on Council for the money, you have no idea the time it takes away from your family. All of us have a “day job”. All of us could make better “part time” money doing just about anything. The last meeting, the public hearing is the only meeting we are required to have. As you may recall, we have had at least three other meetings with those effected by this project. Those meetings I wasn’t “paid” to attend. I was there because I care what they have to say.Four times we asked for constructive input. Four times we got hostility and insult. The city does NOT pay me for that. I am only on Council because I care about this town. My family lives here, a lot of my friends live. I want Centerville to thrive.Many citizens spoke about concerns they have about the proposed road project. I heard people agreeing that portions of the proposed project needs to be done, but not one citizen that spoke agreed with city council that the entire scope of the project needs to be done at this time. I have spoke with NUMEROUS citizens that want the road project. Many of them were sitting in the audience that night. Privately they have told me they want the majority of the project to go forward, but they will not state so publically as they don’t want to face the anger of their neighbors. Somehow, I can understand that.This project is as big as it is in an effort to get the most for our money. Eventually all this work will likely NEED to be done. It cost less if we do it all at once.Some issues that I can recall that were not addressed are:
1. What is city council doing to bring in more business to the city?Have you not heard about the down town revitalization project?
I’ve been working on that for 5 years. I have hundreds, maybe even a thousand hours of MY time in it. Above and beyond what is required of me.
What is city council doing to keep the businesses that we have?The backage road was built in an effort to keep KEY businesses here while the County rebuild Main Street. We formed the Economic Development Authority to INVENT ways to assist current and hopefully current business. We have sought out county, state and federal business assistance programs, one other local officials don’t even know exist. And I personally go MILES out of my way to spend any money I can at our local businesses, even if I can get it cheaper somewhere else.
2. Why does Mill Road need a bike path at this time?
Because it will never be less expensive later. It IS a safety issue and I for one will not wait until someone is hurt or killed to fix a problem I KNOW exists. Mill Road is a collector street. It should have has a bike path on it years ago.
3. Why does Brian Way need a sidewalk?
It may not. Brian Way is not a collector street, though it is the accepted practice according to the Comp Plan to interconnect trails and sidewalks when possible.
4. Does everybody have to hook up to city water/sewer right away or can they wait? Does the word everybody mean everybody or just the unfortunate people selected?
Every one that has city water available will be required to hook up to city water.If you are referring to Council Member Vickers, she will not be included in this project as she lives on a COUNTY road, which is not part of this project. BUT, when the County road is done, the city SHOULD make water available to her property and since she owns…..140 plus acres, she WILL pay an incredible amount. Unfortunately, I will not be on Council to to weigh in on the matter. (though I suspect she may).
5. If the road project cost goes up then why will my assessment also go up?
Once we declare what your assessment will be, it can not go up without your approval. Our only choice would be to remove your portion from this project.
6. How can the increase in property value be associated with the cost of the project?
When I repair a problem at my house, my house does not increase in value by the full cost of material and labor. Many times there is not an increase in value at all.If your roof leaks, the repair does not add value to your home. However if you chose NOT to repair the roof, your value will decrease. But the availability of city water does improve property value, the county assessor says so. So does having a new road, sidewalk, bike trail system, etc. That is what we MUST go by.
7. What source or sources are being using to determine the amount my property value will increase due to the proposed road construction?
We have had an appraiser look at various houses in each part of the project. Which is more than some cities will do. Our valuations are ASSUMED to be correct in a court of law. The burden to prove otherwise is on the homeowner.
My actions may not have been the calmest in the audience, but as Council Member Jeff Paar motioned to bring it on, we responded to his jester and brought it on.
I am not Jeff Paar.

We hope that the citizen’s voices have been heard and you respect our voices and change the scope of the project to include only the necessary improvements and to remove the ‘luxury’ portions of the project such as sidewalks and bike paths.
Infrastructure is not a luxury. Ignore it and it will go away, until it becomes ridiculously expensive to replace. Look at the I35 bridge collapse. It was ignored, it wwent away and now it is 10 -15 more expensive to replace then it could have been.Certainly portions of this project COULD be removed, though the net effect to the cost would not be substantial. If the “niceties” aren’t added now, they will NEVER be added.
Respectfully,
Tom Lee
Why has Council been ignoring a road maintenance budget?

Contact us privately with City information, news and personal stories. All contact information will be kept private and not posted on the blog unless requested.Email Centervilleblog@yahoo.com

Petition Requesting Relief Discredited By Council

Here is an email written by Council member, Tom Lee. If Council can discredit the petition, they can conveniently disregard it and move ahead without consideration of the many people that worked so hard. Is this the local government we want? The email is a direct copy and paste. Typos and all! The only thing added is the commentary, in red. The names of the residents involved will never be disclosed as they are not public officials.

From: JUDY TOM LEE [mailto:lee_family@q.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008
To: XXXX; tomlee@nol-tec.com
Subject: for the record

Ms. XXXX,

I understand you have taken issue with some things I may or may not have stated in a conversation with my neighbor, XXXX. First, the statements I made did not include any accusation of forgery, though I did state that I believe the petition to be less than valid, as I have first hand knowledge that many of the issues represented by the person or people presenting the petition, were incorrect and/or half truths. If you have heard otherwise, there was a misunderstanding of what I said.

Here is what was said by me, let me explain the circumstances of the conversation as well. I guess it was Monday night, my neighbor XXXX came to my house, fuming that the city was going to "rip out her fence and cut down her tree," which happen to be in the street right of way. I wasn't home, I was at work, so my wife got an earful. Tuesday after work and before the work shop, I spoke with XXXX, my first opportunity. After calming her down, she told me that YOU told her the city intended to force the removal of her fence and tree, because she too opposed the road and that as we were going after you "as punishment for opposing the road project..........." I explained that the city had no intention of "punishing" anyone for anything, nor to my knowledge, were we going to do anything about her fence or tree. To be honest, I didn't realize until THIS blow up that the rock that public works recommended be removed even involved your property, it was just an address. That being said, as a combat decorated veteran of the United States Marine Corps, I don't just talk the talk, I walked the walk. I put myself in harm's way when I was a younger man and I am STILL willing to fight and die if necessary, to defend YOUR ability to exercise YOUR rights. That doesn't mean I have to agree with you or even consider your comments, but I fully support your right to express your views without "punishment" from any form of government. To say I resent the implication that a Council on which I serve would enforce an ordinance on you as punishment for exercising your rights is a not only a gross understatement, I am sickened by it. XXXX also stated she signed the petition opposing the street project, primarily because she was told that the city was going to put a trail in our other neighbor's yard (Brian Way) which she thought was an incredibly bad idea. While that path did appear in the initial scope of the project, she wasn't alone in her opinion. The trail was one of the first things removed from the proposal. XXXX also stated that she agreed the road needed work, suggesting that maybe it could just be patched. I told XXXX, that I was certain some of the other names on that petition are there for "bogus" reasons as well. I explained that I myself was approached to sign the petition, I listened to what was said, then identified myself and corrected just about every piece of misinformation that was stated to get people to sign. If I didn't know better, I'd have signed the petition myself. To be fair, you were not the person that I spent over an hour with explaining the REAL facts, I don't recall her name but she was at last nights meeting, seated against the east wall.

I also stated that I have spoke to other residents directly, that told me that they signed the petition only because of misinformation or feeling pressured to sign, not wanting to be continually confronted by angry supporters. Though most of them said they didn't like the idea of being accessed, most agreed the road needed some type of improvement. The result for ME was to view the petition as not completely valid. That doesn't mean that I believe if people were told the whole truth, they wouldn't be opposed to the project, they'd have only been able to fairly access it.
All of what I said was completely true and more importantly...FAIR. The only apology I'd offer would be to XXXX, who may have misunderstood any comments I made.

I also expressed my opinion that it seems you and some of the other "major players" are not only be willing to create animosity to further your cause, but tend to use that tactic as your primary tool. That is something I find very distasteful.

I have attended each and every meeting, including those we were not required to hold, in a good faith attempt to work TOGETHER at finding the best solution to a common problem. It is clear to me that the good faith was generally one sided.

In the future, if there is something you believe I did or said that you've a problem with, perhaps you could send me an email, I'd be happy to discuss it, perhaps saving everyone a little agrivation.
For the record, the petition in question simply stated that We, Your Constituents Would Like You to Step Back and Reassess the Scope of the Project in These Difficult Economic Times. What is misleading about that? Thou protests too much!

Follow Up
Subject: Follow Up Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008
Dear Tom,
Having been your neighbor for approximately ten years, you know that I like to keep to myself and do not engage in idle neighborhood gossip. That being said, I have to tell you that I find the recent events involving the road expansion petition (and our conversation regarding it) disheartening. Although I appreciated your addressing my concern with the easement issue, I feel that I have now been dragged into something I never wanted to become involved with.

I received a forwarded email written by you from XXXX today. I was utterly shocked by some of the statements you made as they pertain to me. I would like to address a couple of points in which I take issue, starting with:
I at no time came to your house to speak with your wife. I did call her on the telephone and mentioned that my address was listed along with 87 others that were in an easement violation. She said she knew nothing about it and would leave you the message that I called. I disagree that I ever “gave he an earful”, as you state in this email. To say so, tends to discredit any rational inquiry. I did follow up with an email to you that evening but you chose to address me in person while we had visitors the next day. The conversation which ensued was extremely unprofessional and made my guests very uncomfortable. In fact, they left because of it.

During this conversation, at no time did you have to “calm me down” as you also state in this email. I very much resent the implication that I was in some way hysterical, as I believe that I was not. I would have been quite content with your answer on the easement but as you know, the conversation went much further. You knew very well who XXXX and her neighbor were as you said they were somehow involved in creating the list of the 88 easement violations and had been arguing with each other. You also said that my tree and fence did not pose a problem for the road maintenance but one of these ladies had rocks in her yard and that the city would move them if necessary. I at no time stated that XXXX had said the city was going to do anything to me as you misrepresent in this email. We did not discuss the possibility that I was being punished for opposing the road expansion and today is the first time I’ve even heard of it.

Regarding the petition, as I remember it you said that some council members had taken it upon themselves to call the residents on the list. You also stated that about 200 residents claimed they never signed, although their signatures were listed, indicating fraud. I remember this distinctly because I told you not to bother calling us. My husband and I both readily signed the petition in question and our signatures were indeed valid. In this email you sent today, you state that in your opinion the petition was being misrepresented by the individuals canvassing the city. I do not remember this being mentioned at all during conversation and I disagree with your assessment of the people involved.

I do not know what the problem is between you and XXXX but I really resent being dragged into the middle of it. You mention in this email that the only person you would consider apologizing to is me because I might have misunderstood some of your statements. I did not misunderstand what you said about Ms Meath, her neighbor or the petition, Tom. I think it is terribly unprofessional of you to misrepresent our conversation and in doing so, attack another constituent. It is unfortunate that I have been forced to become involved in this nonsense and place the blame squarely on your shoulders. You might want to consider a public apology to XXXX as it does look to others that you are retaliating against her for opposing your road expansion project.

In closing, I would like to mention that it is your responsibility to consider each and every single constituents concern and opinion when making major decisions which will affect their lives. I find your statement to the contrary, quite concerning and intimidating considering your position on the city council.

Going forward, if you wish to contact me, please do so via email as I do not want to be misrepresented by you in the future.
Regards

Centerville Citizen